tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 28 07:10:28 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 'contamination' and <-Ha'choHmoH>
Robyn Stewart (firstname.lastname@example.org)
"In order to control the contamination of the river" is so English. What does it mean?
bIQtIq wISay'Ha'choHbe'meH = in order for us to not contaminate the river (river currently clean)
bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmeH = in order for us change to not contaminating the river (implied that we're doing do now)
bIQtIq wISay'Ha'chu'taHmeH = in order that our contamination process proceed well (we're contaminating it on purpose, for some reason).
There are phrasings like bIQtIq wISay'Ha'moH 'e' wISeHmeH that could be used but I don't think that's what you're doing.
Is there anything in your intended meaning not covered by: bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmeH qachvaD bIQ watlhmoHmeH pat wIjom.
This somewhat implies that the building already exists and is currently contaminating the river. If it's a new building that will have the watlhmoHwI' from day one, then leave out -choH.
Honestly: in Klingon if there is no pressing reason to create a noun, don't.
On 2013-05-28, at 0:55, Ruben Molina <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Robyn Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Please note: <lamHa'choHmoH> instead of <lamHa'moH>. *why?*
>> lamHa'choHmoH - cause to become undirty
>> lamHa'moH - cause to be undirty, possibly by cleaning, possibly by not
>> getting dirty in the first place
> That makes perfect sense. Thanks.
>>> So, it should be: <lamHa'choHmoH> and <Say'Ha'choHmoH> yes?
>>> 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> ?
>> It might be an idiom. They would all be understandable, as would English,
>> "Where can I remove dirt from my shoes?" It's just not the normal way we ask
>> in English.
> That makes sense too.
>>> So, I assume <Say'Ha'choHmoH> works as 'to contaminate'
>>> And then <Say'Ha'choHmoHghach> would be 'contamination'. yes?
>> But ask yourself why you want the noun. If it's to translate an English
>> expression that uses a noun, hen consider rephrasing to leave it as a verb.
> Yes. I was previously pointed on this by QeS 'utlh. In particular,
> even if <watlhmoHghach> could be parsed as "purification",
> <watlhmoHmeH patmey> is a much better translation than <watlhmoHghach
> patmey> for "purification systems"..
> Sometimes I have problems rephrasing my sentences.
> I was thiinking on something like:
> <bIQtIq Say'Ha'choHmoHghach wISeHnIS>
> "we need to control the contamination of the river"
> and it could be changed into something like:
> <Say'Ha'choH bIQtIq 'e' wISeHnIS>
> "the river is contaminated. we need to control that"
What are you controlling? Is control an issue here?
> But how can I say something like:
> <bIQtIq Say'Ha'choHmoHghach SeHmeH qachvaD bIQ watlhmoHghach pat wIjompu'>
> "in order to control the contamination of the river we installed a
> water purification system for the building"
> I can think on something like:
> <bIQtIq Say'Ha'choHmoHmo' qach, bIQ watlhmoHmeH pat wIjompu'>
> "because the building contaminates the river, we installed a system
> for the purpose of purify the water"
> which is not exactly the same thing but could work...
> But I still like the first one better...
> I need to keep trying...
>>> Any difference between <lammoH> and <Say'Ha'choHmoH>? Any difference
>> between <lammoHghach> and <Say'Ha'choHmoHghach>?
>> lammoH = Cause to be dirty
>> Say'Ha'choHmoH = cause to become unclean
>> Probably not for most purposes.
>> You're doing very well. Good use of canon and logic. jumuvta'mo' jIQuchqu'.
>> - Qov
> Qov qatlho' :)
Tlhingan-hol mailing list