[Tlhingan-hol] 'contamination' and <-Ha'choHmoH>

[David Trimboli]

On 5/28/2013 1:15 AM, Ruben Molina wrote:
> I am trying to render the concept of "contamination".

How about {nItbe'} "impure"?

> I started from: <Say'> "be clean" and <lam> "be dirty"
> and formed <Say'moH> 'cause to be clean', and <lammoH> 'cause to be dirty'...
>
> so, maybe <lammoHghach> works for 'contamination'...

"The cause of being dirty."

> But, what about: <Say'Ha'> 'be unclean' (?) and <lamHa'> 'be
> not-dirty' (?)...  ?

Say'be' = be unclean
lambe' = be clean (be not-dirty)
Say'Ha' = be de-cleaned
lamHa' = be un-dirtied

> and from there:
>
> <Say'Ha'moH> 'cause "a change in direction" from clean to unclean' (?)
>
> <lamHa'moH> 'cause "a change in direction" from dirty to not-dirty' (?)

There is no "change in direction" in these words. {Say'Ha'moH} "cause to 
be de-cleaned"; {lamHa'moH} "cause to be un-dirtied."

> But here we have canon:
>
>      "Where can I get my shoes cleaned?"
>      <nuqDaq waqwIj vIlamHa'choHmoH>
>
> Please note: <lamHa'choHmoH> instead of <lamHa'moH>. *why?*

{-choH} indicates a change in state. {vIlamHa'choHmoH} "I cause them to 
change state to un-dirtied."

> So, it should be: <lamHa'choHmoH> and <Say'Ha'choHmoH> yes?

"cause to become undirtied"
"cause to become decleaned."

> BTW, this is the only example I found in the form <-Ha'choHmoH> but
> there are many <-descansa amorHa'moH>... And why not  <nuqDaq waqwIj
> vISay'moH> or <nuqDaq waqwIj vISay'choHmoH> ?

I suppose the emphasis is on removing dirt, rather than on being clean.

> So, I assume <Say'Ha'choHmoH> works as 'to contaminate'
> And then <Say'Ha'choHmoHghach> would be 'contamination'. yes?

*IF* we accept {Say'Ha'choHmoHghach}, I'd say it means "the causing of 
becoming decleaned." But I have yet to see a legitimate {-ghach} word 
with that many suffixes.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/