tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 15 11:01:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
From: "Sean Healy" <[email protected]>
> 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.
This isn't about grammar, it's about semantics. The MEANING of your
sentence is wrong. You didn't intend to /paw/, you intended to SAY /paw/
(or write, or whatever). The object of /Hech/ is that which you "mean to"
do, not that which you "mean." In English, you can't "mean to word," but
you can "mean to say a word."
If the definition of /Hech/ were "mean" instead of "mean to," I'd agree with
you. My English dictionary gives in its definition of "mean": "1. to have
in the mind as in intention or purpose (often with an infinitive as
object)." Okrand built this infinitive into the definition of /Hech/. Of
course, one might argue that it's only there to differentiate it from "be
mean," but then there's also canon, which only has /'e'/ as the object
representing verbs.
Okrand uses /Hech/ in THE KLINGON WAY (and probably elsewhere):
. . . maHemtaH 'e' wIHech.
. . . We intend to go on being proud. (p.13)
SuStel
Stardate 2041.5