Let me show you how to make small dumplings

[kroki]

Hi anyone who can give me some advice,

In my efforts to learn Klingon I want to say:

Let me teach you how to make small cookies/dumplings.

What I can concoct myself is:

chabmey machqu' DavutmeH vIghojmoHjaj.

but the meH part is probably not right.

Alternatively I can think of:

chabmey machqu' DavutlaH 'e' vIghojmoHjaj.

In the meantime I will make the cookies myself. 

QoghtlhIH'u' says thanks in advance.

[ter'eS]

I'm less concerned about DavutmeH than I am about vIghoHmoHjaj, since an on-going argument is whether the direct object of ghojmoH is the person or the subject taught to the person.  Also, -jaj isn't used to ask for permission, but to express a wish for someone. vI-...-jaj means "May it be that I...".  How about side-stepping the issue and using

chabHom vutmeH mIw vI'agh vIneH.

chab pie
-Hom diminutive suffix
vut to cook
-meH in order to
mIw method
vI- verb prefix: I-it
'agh to show, demonstrate
neH to want

It's not a request anymore but a statement of what you want to do; but you're a Klingon! What are you doing asking permission in the first place?

[kroki]

Thanks again, ter'eS!

I did think about chabHom, but somewhere I also read that Hom is not just diminuitive, but gives another meaning to the noun.
A boy, loDHom is not a small man, loD mach.

In your translation, the meH part precedes mIw, the method for cooking. That is the word I forgot.
The -ghojmoH  construction meaning to teach I read somewhere on a webpage.

Also thanks for reminding me about the Klingon way,

QoghtlhIH'u'

[ter'eS]

I did think about chabHom, but somewhere I also read that Hom is not just diminuitive, but gives another meaning to the noun.
A boy, loDHom is not a small man, loD mach.

And a "cookie" isn't just a small pie. 

[kroki]

Yes, a cookie is not a small pie.

I just found out that your solution does in no way include the second person.:
chabHom vutmeH mIw vI'agh vIneH.


What about:
chabHom vutmeH mIw SoHvaD vI'agh vIneH.

or

chabHom vutmeH mIw 'e' SoHvaD vI'agh vIneH.
?


Using to show instead of to teach does in itself not solve the direct/indirect object problem. You circumvented the problem by removing the second person altogether.

[ter'eS]

The second person didn't seem necessary. I felt that "I want to demonstrate" implied "to you".  But if you want to include it, put SoHvaD first in the sentence, before chabHom. Or (to bring up a sort of advanced topic) you could use the "prefix trick" on the verb, to show the indirect object: chabHom vutmeH mIw qa'agh vIneH (qa- verb prefix: I-you).

Prefix trick: when you have a 3rd person object present in the sentence and a 2nd person beneficiary, you can use the verb prefix that normally shows a 2nd person object, and it acts in this case like a substitute for -vaD.

[kroki]

Thanks again ter'eS,

Never mind getting technical or advanced, I entered this forum because I'm interested in the language and its pecularities in the first place. I've read my share of linguistic theory and know something of several different languages, which is confusing sometimes: the 'e' reminds me of the Italian é (is) and the je' of the Czech je (is).

The cookie/dumpling confusion is because in my mind I was generalizing chab into something starchy. I am not even sure what a dumpling is. English is not my native language. I suppose a dumpling is a knedliky or knedle, but then again that's Polish. Likewise I found in the TKD the word nacelle (HanDogh) and I had no idea what I was until I looked it up in an illustrated Oxford Dictionary.

And I already studied your grammar pages, so I am aware of the prefix trick. Now I realize that the chabHom example is such a case where the trick is "performed".

QoghtlhIH'u'