Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

["Sean Healy" <sangqar@hotmail.com>]

> >>/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>.

TKD, p. 65:
"Klingon has two special pronouns, {'e'} and {net}, which refer to the 
previous sentence as a whole...They are always treated as the object of the 
verb, and the verb always takes a prefix indicating a third-person singular 
object."

So it seems to me that {'e'} and {net} are always treated exactly as though 
they were a third-person singular object.  So it _is_ about {'e'}.  I should 
be able to swap {'e'} and {<paw>} (or perhaps {mu' <paw>}).

p. 66:
"{qama'pu' DIHoH 'e' luSov} They know we kill prisoners.

This sentence is actually two: (1) {qama'pu' DIHoH} We kill prisoners 
({qama'pu'} prisoners, {DIHoH} we kill them); (2) {'e' luSov} They know that 
({'e'} that {luSov} they know it).  The pronoun {'e'} refers to the previous 
sentence, We kill prisoners."

Using Okrand's explanation on the two {Hech} sentences gives us the 
following result:

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

<paw> jIjatlh 'e' vIHech
I intend to that I say <paw>.

Both sentences are equally odd from an English grammar viewpoint.

According to TKD, {'e'} and a third-person singular object should be 
completely interchangeable (unless some post-TKD material says otherwise).  
If {Hech} can take {'e'}, then it should be able to take a third-person 
singular object (or any object for that matter) unless Okrand specifically 
made {Hech} an exception.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.