[96301] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 'contamination' and <-Ha'choHmoH>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Tue May 28 11:56:46 2013
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>,
"tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:56:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <51A4CFE7.5040907@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> 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'.
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
