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

[David Trimboli]

On 5/28/2013 11:12 AM, Ruben Molina wrote:
> 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 don't think {ghe'naQ nIt} has any bearing on whether {nIt} or {watlh} 
is better. We don't have any examples of {watlh}, do we? Choose either, 
but don't discount {nIt} because it has been used to describe a type of 
opera.

>>> 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

Just because I didn't use -ness or -tion in my translation doesn't mean 
it's incorrect. I just rephrased to sound a little more natural.

A {-ghach} word is all about the suffix. {lammoHghach} is the *causing* 
of being dirty. {lamchoHghach} is the change of state into becoming 
dirty. {lamHa'ghach} is the undoing of being dirty. If you really want 
to say "causation," "changeness," and "undoingness," that's you're own 
lookout.

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

Yeeeeeesssss... I'm not sure those are the best words, though, 
especially since I see varying definitions of them elsewhere. Wikipedia, 
for instance, describes the difference between stative and "dynamic" 
verbs with "stative verbs are static or unchanging throughout their 
entire duration, whereas dynamic verbs describe a process that changes 
over time."

Better to use the terms "verb of quality" and "verb of action," 
especially since Okrand tends to use the words "quality" and "action" 
for this distinction. It also help with certain words like {Qong}: 
{Qong} could be said to describe a state ("be asleep"), but it's really 
an action ("sleep"); you can't say *{tlhIngan Qong} "sleeping Klingon," 
but you can say {QongtaHbogh tlhIngan} "sleeping Klingon" or {Qongbogh 
tlhIngan} "Klingon who sleeps."

>>> 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" ?

Yes. {-Ha'} is not simple negation, and it is not always best translated 
into English with "un-." It refers to undoing a state or action, or 
doing it wrong.

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