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

[Ruben Molina]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes. My argument makes no sense. Thanks.

>
>>>> 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.
>

It makes perfect sense.

>> 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."
>

That's a really useful distiction. 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" ?
>
> 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.
>

Yes. I see. I need to work in this difference.

SuStel qatlho' :)

>
> --
> 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.