tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 28 08:49:12 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

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

Robyn Stewart (robyn@flyingstart.ca) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']




On 2013-05-28, at 8:31, Ruben Molina <rmolina@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>> "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)
> 
> "In order to *avoid* the contamination of the river". There is no
> contamination that needs to be contolled in this case.
> 
>> bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmeH = in order for us change to not contaminating the river (implied that we're doing do now)
> 
> This is what I was looking for. Thnaks.
> 
>> bIQtIq wISay'Ha'chu'taHmeH = in order that our contamination process proceed well (we're contaminating it on purpose, for some reason).

Ack my error:
wISay'Ha'moHchu'taHmeH

> Not really a case but it works as a pattern for:
> 
> bIQtIq wISay'chu'taHmeH = in order that our decontamination process
> proceed well (we're decontaminating it on purpose, for some reason).

bIQtIq wISay'moHchu'taHmeH

*I* missed the -moH. It was  a test. No it was me. I often do when there's a -meH. I think it and don't type it and don't proofread. Don't be like me. 

> 
>> 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.

> Again, works as a pattern for:
> bIQtIq wISay'Ha'moH 'e' wImevmeH

Why say that when you can say bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmoHmeH?


>> Is there anything in your intended meaning not covered by: bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmeH qachvaD bIQ watlhmoHmeH pat wIjom.
> 
> No, everything is covered.

Except that I've missed -moH all the way through that post. DaH HIHoH. 


> I just wasn't sure a construction like that was possible.
> 
> bIQtIq wISay'Ha'be'choHmeH qachvaD bIQ watlhmoHmeH pat wIjom.
> noun verb+meH noun verb+meH noun verb
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Honestly: in Klingon if there is no pressing reason to create a noun, don't.
> 
> Yes, it is getting clear to me.
> And I can't find any examples in canon of it being used.
> So it is better to stop trying using it.
> 
> Qov qatlho'
> ru'ben
> 
>> 
>> - Qov
>> 
>> 
>> On 2013-05-28, at 0:55, Ruben Molina <rmolina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca> 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'
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>> Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> 
> 
> --
> There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol



Back to archive top level