naH in fruit names 'oQqar in vegetable names
'epIl naH ghIrep naH Sutra'ber naH but.. tera' na'ran tera' na'ran'a' tanje'rIn and.. 'anyan 'oQqar gharlIq 'oQqar andl let's not forget tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHom With regards to the fruits, I can't understand the rationale by which some fruits have the {naH} and some don't. Does this mean that while we can say {tanje'rInmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, we can't just say {'epIlmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Do we *need* to add the {naH} too, thus writing {'epIl naHmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Similarly, if we want to say "the chef put french fries next to the steak". Can't we just say {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ? Do we *need* to add the {'oQqar} too, thus writing {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ? ~ Qa'yIn
It's because those are no.-klingon items. I think anyone will understand if omitted, but grammatically, the additional word must always be added. Http://klingon.wiki/Word/NaH Lieven. -- ssent forom the streets. Pkaese ecxuse any tpyos. Am 24. Juli 2020 14:29:31 MESZ schrieb mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
'epIl naH ghIrep naH Sutra'ber naH
but..
tera' na'ran tera' na'ran'a' tanje'rIn
and..
'anyan 'oQqar gharlIq 'oQqar
andl let's not forget
tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHom
With regards to the fruits, I can't understand the rationale by which some fruits have the {naH} and some don't. Does this mean that while we can say {tanje'rInmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, we can't just say {'epIlmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Do we *need* to add the {naH} too, thus writing {'epIl naHmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ?
Similarly, if we want to say "the chef put french fries next to the steak".
Can't we just say {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ? Do we *need* to add the {'oQqar} too, thus writing {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/24/2020 9:10 AM, Lieven wrote:
It's because those are no.-klingon items. I think anyone will understand if omitted, but grammatically, the additional word must always be added.
I don't think it's a grammatical necessity to do this any more than it's a grammatical necessity to say /beans/ after /vinova./ It's just a Star Trek trope that Marc Okrand is deliberately playing into. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Aha. -- ssent forom the streets. Pkaese ecxuse any tpyos. Am 24. Juli 2020 15:17:08 MESZ schrieb SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/24/2020 9:10 AM, Lieven wrote:
It's because those are no.-klingon items. I think anyone will understand if omitted, but grammatically, the additional word must always be added.
I don't think it's a grammatical necessity to do this any more than it's a grammatical necessity to say /beans/ after /vinova./ It's just a Star
Trek trope that Marc Okrand is deliberately playing into.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 8:29 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'epIl naH ghIrep naH Sutra'ber naH
but..
tera' na'ran tera' na'ran'a' tanje'rIn
and..
'anyan 'oQqar gharlIq 'oQqar
andl let's not forget
tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHom
With regards to the fruits, I can't understand the rationale by which some fruits have the {naH} and some don't.
In the case of {tera' na'ran} (and the variations on it), the difference is that it's not a transliteration of the Federation Standard name of the fruit. It's being described by reference to a Klingon fruit, the *na'ran*. A Klingon speaker presumably already knows that a {na'ran} is a fruit. Same thing for {tera' peb'ot} for "cucumber". In the case of {'oQqar}, they're described that way because there's a more-specific Klingon word for that part of a plant. (I have some questions about this topic, actually, but I'll save them for another time.) {tanje'rIn} is really the only odd one out. Perhaps Klingons have somehow become familiar enough with tangerines to not need to add the descriptive {naH}. Or perhaps the Klingon style of referring to off-world plants changed at some point after the Eurotalk food list.
Does this mean that while we can say {tanje'rInmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, we can't just say {'epIlmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Do we *need* to add the {naH} too, thus writing {'epIl naHmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ?
I don't think we know one way or the other for certain. Personally, though, I don't think there's much of a problem with dropping the {naH}, or {'oQqar}, or whatever. I'd probably keep it for {per naHmey} and {ray' tIr} just because the transliterations are actual Klingon words. And if your audience is likely to be a bunch of {'I'SeghImpu'}, you might want to stick with the more precise version. Maybe you could use the full name the first time it's mentioned, and then just the transliteration part. You don't need to refer to Worf as {mogh puqloD} every time you mention him, after all.
Similarly, if we want to say "the chef put french fries next to the steak".
Can't we just say {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ? Do we *need* to add the {'oQqar} too, thus writing {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'}?
If it were me, I might not even bother with the {tlhagh}. I feel like {patat naQHommey} would suffice in most contexts, unless the audience was utterly unfamiliar with Earth steak-related culinary practices. (On another note, I think you could just call a steak {Ha'DIbaH}. {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} mostly makes me think of deli meats, not steaks.)
I was recently reflecting on why, in English, it’s “tuna” if it’s a fillet, but it’s “tuna fish” if it’s in a can. Likely, the word pairs you have pointed out are arbitrary, and possibly dialectic. It could be that the pair of words is not a necessity. All we really know is that the pairs we see in canon are right. Non-canon versions might be right or they might be wrong. If you want to know that you are right, stick to canon. It’s easy to make up stories to explain the differences. Maybe {naH} refers to the above-ground parts of a plant, while {‘oQqar} is the below ground part, and plants that either have Klingon equivalents or have become adopted to grow on Qo’noS use the two-word version because Klingons are familiar with the whole plants and use the second word to differentiate the part of the plant we eat, while plants that NEVER are grown there only appear as imports in food markets, so Klingons have no idea what the plant is like. They only know the food item, so you don’t need the second word to qualify it. But that’s just my story. It’s not canon, and it’s probably not right. Still, it would explain the differences among these food terms. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 24, 2020, at 8:29 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'epIl naH ghIrep naH Sutra'ber naH
but..
tera' na'ran tera' na'ran'a' tanje'rIn
and..
'anyan 'oQqar gharlIq 'oQqar
andl let's not forget
tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHom
With regards to the fruits, I can't understand the rationale by which some fruits have the {naH} and some don't. Does this mean that while we can say {tanje'rInmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, we can't just say {'epIlmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Do we *need* to add the {naH} too, thus writing {'epIl naHmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ?
Similarly, if we want to say "the chef put french fries next to the steak".
Can't we just say {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ? Do we *need* to add the {'oQqar} too, thus writing {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'} ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Replying to the subject line which says that {naH} is used in fruit names and {'oQqar} in vegetable names. By definition {naH} is used to refer to both fruits and vegetables, while {'oQqar} is for roots and tubers. So, {'oQqar} would be for Earth beets, carrots, parsnips, turnips, potatoes, jicama... And I'm also of the opinion that adding either term to a produce name is because it's not a Klingon food. Personally, I wouldn't drop it. I also wouldn't feel the need to add {tera'} unless for some reason I really needed to specify that I wasn't talking about actual Klingon foods. ~naHQun; goddess of fruit/vegetables
nIqolay Q:
On another note, I think you could just call a steak {Ha'DIbaH}. {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} mostly makes me think of deli meats, not steaks.
This is a very interesting comment. For quite some time now, i've believed that {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} was the perfect description of a steak, because of the way butchers in greece make them. First, they take a piece of meat, then they slice with a knife the flesh, using a cleaver at the end to cut the bone. So, all this time I was thinking to myself "no problem if klingon doesn't have a dedicated word for 'steak'; I'll use {Ha'DIbaH baylaD}, since steaks are sliced from a bigger piece of meat". But after reading your comment, I understood that saying {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} would be more appropriate for deli meats. On the other hand, using just {Ha'DIbaH} for "steak", would create another kind of confusion.. In greece, we often roast an entire thigh of an animal, or an entire leg, and using {Ha'DIbaH} on its own, brings to my mind more the image of an entire leg/thigh, than the image of a steak. So, in order to avoid this confusion, I think that in order to describe "steak" in klingon, I'll just be writing *steak*, at least until the month that has no saturday, when we'll receive a klingon word for "steak". ("month that has no saturday" = greek saying, meaning that something will never actually happen, since there is no month without a saturday..) melanie roney:
Replying to the subject line which says that {naH} is used in fruit names and {'oQqar} in vegetable names. By definition {naH} is used to refer to both fruits and vegetables, while {'oQqar} is for roots and tubers.
Yeah, you're right; I wrote it this way due to confusion from overlapping meanings between what is considered a vegetable in greek/english/klingon. Go figure.. Oh well. HIvqa' veqlargh. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu' reH Suvrup SuvwI''a' ..and similar klingon crap. ~ Qa'yIn
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a very interesting comment.
For quite some time now, i've believed that {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} was the perfect description of a steak, because of the way butchers in greece make them. First, they take a piece of meat, then they slice with a knife the flesh, using a cleaver at the end to cut the bone. So, all this time I was thinking to myself "no problem if klingon doesn't have a dedicated word for 'steak'; I'll use {Ha'DIbaH baylaD}, since steaks are sliced from a bigger piece of meat".
But after reading your comment, I understood that saying {Ha'DIbaH baylaD} would be more appropriate for deli meats. On the other hand, using just {Ha'DIbaH} for "steak", would create another kind of confusion..
In greece, we often roast an entire thigh of an animal, or an entire leg, and using {Ha'DIbaH} on its own, brings to my mind more the image of an entire leg/thigh, than the image of a steak.
So, in order to avoid this confusion, I think that in order to describe "steak" in klingon, I'll just be writing *steak*, at least until the month that has no saturday, when we'll receive a klingon word for "steak".
Unless you're writing a cookbook or a lavish description of a banquet, it's probably rarely necessary to be extremely specific about the particular meat configuration. In the context of your example, the chef is putting fries next to the meat in question, so it's likely to be a piece of meat that's traditionally served with fries and that will fit onto a plate, which suggests a steak rather than a whole leg. If you *are* writing a cookbook or a lavish description of a banquet, you still have some options before just using the Federation Standard word itself. To be more precise about various dishes, you could use {gham} "limb", {nev'ob} "thigh", {ghab} "chunk of the midsection of an animal", or {Hom Hutlhbogh ghab} "boneless chunk of the midsection of an animal". If it's necessary to specifically refer to a steak-shaped slab of meat, maybe something like {baylaD'a'} "big slice", {baylaD qargh} "thick slice", or {ngogh} "brick, lump, block" for a steak could work. Or perhaps {baylaD} works just fine for steak, and deli meats would be {baylaDHom}. I'm not a Klingon; perhaps the Klingon conception of a slice of meat is closer to a steak than to deli meat.
participants (6)
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Melanie Roney -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin