On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:32 PM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
But I would not put too much weight on that. It's very likely that he
simply forgot that all fruits have the {naH} complement, and on the
other hand, I have noticed that many people cheat in those cases saying
{'epIl vISop} and everyone understands.

http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Tanje-rIn

I mean, what would be the difference between {tanje'rIn} and {tanje'rIn
naH}? Just my opinion, of course.

This sort of ties into something I'm curious about. In KGT, p. 88, {naH} was originally defined as a culinary term, rather than a botanical one:
Any part of any plant that is eaten may be termed {naH}, usually translated "fruit" or "vegetable."
But when talking about Terran food plants, it's not used for things like potatoes. Potatoes aren't {patat naH}, they're referred to with a more specific term, {'oQqar}, focusing on which part of the plant a potato is. {naH} is only used to refer to Terran plant parts that are fruits in the botanical sense: that is, "the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms) formed from the ovary after flowering." (Wikipedia) E.g., {ghIrep naH} refers to the fruit of the grape plant itself, not to other parts of the grape plant that are eaten, like the leaves. So it seems that {naH}, aside from having a broader culinary meaning of "any part of any plant that is eaten", also has a more specific usage for botanical fruits.

So I wonder: Did {naH} originally mean "seed-bearing structure formed from the ovary after flowering", and was then generalized to all edible plant parts? Does Klingon not have a specific word for fruit in the botanical sense, so they just use the generic {naH} to refer to such things on Earth? Is there a different word for things that are botanically fruits but aren't eaten, so they wouldn't fit into the original culinary definition of {naH}?

Sov luneH yIntejpu'...