tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 15 14:48:04 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

: 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)

{Hech} "intend, mean to" (v.) in canon:

  Hem tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech. 
  Klingons are a proud race, and we intend to go on being proud. TKW

  Ha'DIbaH DaSop 'e' DaHechbe'chugh yIHoHQo'.
  Do not kill an animal unless you intend to eat it. TKW

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level