tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 16 19:55:43 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

>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

Back to archive top level