tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 15 00:12:28 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:12:23 EST
>> > 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
>it.
>
>But I thought that {'e'} acted as an object so that "SENTENCE 'e' VERB"
>was
>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>.
yemQo'yaD
---
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.