Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

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

>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)

So what you're saying is that the 'to' in the definition (combined with the 
fact all canon examples of {Hech} take {'e'}) leads you to believe that 
{Hech} can only take {'e'} as its object, sort of an implied exception to 
the general notion that {'e'} and a noun object are interchangeable.  I can 
buy that.  I would formulate that implied exception as follows:

{Hech} can only be used in the construction [SENTENCE 'e' -Hech-] (dashes 
represent prefix and suffixes), and only when the main verb of SENTENCE has 
the same subject as {Hech}.  ([SENTENCE 'e'] can be implied by context 
rather than specifically stated.)

This gets us away from English notions of the infinitive.  Thanks for your 
explanation and canon example.

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