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

[Ruben Molina]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:22 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 5/28/2013 1:15 AM, Ruben Molina wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to render the concept of "contamination".
>
>
> How about {nItbe'} "impure"?

Yes, using "impure" is probably the best option for what I want.

But I would have used <watlh> instead of <nIt>.  It is just because
the only canon we have <ghe'naQ nIt> "grand opera" ("unsullied opera")
is not what I am looking for.

I think on <watlh> as the kind of thing we use for <watlh baS> "the
metal is pure", I mean "pure" as a physical characteristic.  And <nIt>
is ehat we use for a wider concept, maybe the thing we use in order to
render "morally pure" for a person, or "purebreed" for an animal.
That's just an idea as there is no canon to support this.

>
>> 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 we are told in that <-ghach> means something like <-ness> or <-tion>...

"""
HQ: Just to be clear, you're saying that if it is a stative verb with {-ghach}
    that you are creating a <-ness> equivalent in English? And if it's a
    more active or transitive verb you're creating a <-tion> type of noun?

MO: Yes. So {-ghach} means something like condition of being X, if X is
    stative. Or action or process involved with, or maybe result of the action,
    but the process involved with Y where Y is, for the lack of a
    better term, an active verb.
"""
— HolQeD 3(3):10–13

And <lam> is "stative", but <lammoH> is "active", or I am getting it wrong?

>>
>> <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."
>

I see. Thanks.

>
>> So, it should be: <lamHa'choHmoH> and <Say'Ha'choHmoH> yes?
>
>
> "cause to become undirtied"
> "cause to become decleaned."
>

and "become decleaned" would be something like get it dirty after it
was previously cleaned?
like "something is dirty, you cleaned it, and I decleaned it, so it is
dirty again"  ?
like "the act of cleaning, which was previously successful, it is now lost" ?

>> 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.
>

Thst make perfect sense.

>
>> 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.
>
And that indeed has the notion of <-tion> as in "the action of causing".
I believe I understand now.

Thanks SuStel

> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol



--
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.