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

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> 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?

Just the one that I know of:

le'yo'raj nIHlu'ta'mo' penoD jatlh qeylIS
nuHmeyraj tIQorgh
watlh 'Iwraj 'e' lu'aghmo' nuHmey jej

[And Kahless spoke to them ... ]
About avenging their stolen pride,
About caring for their weapons,
For they represent the purity of their blood.

(paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 8, Stanza 8)

---------------------------

Uncertain what to make of that. Supposedly, blood can be physically watlh, but in this case it's a metaphor for some positive quality.

I might actually argue that nIt might (and on "might" lies my emphasis) be better than watlh, because water in most lakes and rivers is already impure; it contains salt, mud, minerals, algae, fish, crustaceans, worms...
However, that does not necessarily make it *corrupted* or *sullied*.
toH! chaq nItlaH bIQ watlhHa'.