tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 15 14:48:04 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
SuStel:
: 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
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons