tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 30 19:06:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hech (was SaqaD)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hech (was SaqaD)
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:03:48 -0700
At 18:50 98-04-30 -0700, SuStel wrote:
}From: Qov <[email protected]>
}>At 14:27 98-04-28 -0700, HomDoq wrote:
}>}
}>}<<Soj pa'>> DaHech'a'?
}>
}>vIHech. jIreHmo' jIqImbe'.
}
}This is going to drive me mad if I continue to see it over and over again,
}as I have been.
}
}{Hech} is defined as "intend, mean to." It has always been seen with {'e'}
}as its object. This definition and set of examples shows that it should not
}be used for "I meant [some word]," but rather "I meant to do [action]."
}
}To say what you're saying, it'd have to be phrased as
}
}<Soj pa'> bIjatlh 'e' DaHech'a'?
}Did you inted to say {Soj pa'}?
}
}You *might* also say
}
}bIjatlh <Soj pa'> 'e' DaHech'a'?
}
}but I'd rather keep the ambiguity in this sort of sentence to a minimum, and
}keep the quote on the outside.
}
}You might also find a few nouns suitable as the object of this verb. For
}instance,
}
}tojchu'ghach vIHech.
}I intend complete deception.
}
}This sort of usage is speculative, and not supported in canon, but the noun
}represents an action.
I agree completely, SuStel. reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian