tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 15 00:12:28 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

>> > HIvqa' veqlargh!  bIlugh.  {paw} vIHech.
>>I hate to do this to you, but you've just made a common mistake that really
>>irks me for some reason (that it's common, not because you did it).
>>/X vIHech/ means "I meant to X," not "I meant X."  You can't say /<paw>
>>vIHech/, but you can say /<paw> jIjatlh 'e' vIHech/.
>>That "to" in the definition of /Hech/ is all-important.  Don't ignore
>But I thought that {'e'} acted as an object so that "SENTENCE 'e' VERB"
>analagous to "OBJECT VERB".  Or is {Hech} an exception that can only take
>{'e'} or {net} as its object, which Okrand brought to light after TKD?
> (Or 
>maybe it's in TKD and I missed it?)

You're missing the point he was trying to make.  It's not about <'e'>.  He 
was just saying "you ain't good speaking your tlhIngan Hol."   Like what I 
just said in English it's understandable, but anyone who knows English can do 
some nitpicking with my grammar in that sentence.

<paw> vIHech
I intend to "He arrives."

<paw> jIjatlh 'e' vIHech
I intended to say <paw>.

nIvnavwIjDaq targh vIbach.   tuQmeH meq targh 'e' not vISov.
I shot a targ in my pajamas. Why the targ was wearing them I'll never know.

Back to archive top level