Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Sean Healy" <sangqar@hotmail.com>
> 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'm saying that I believe /'e'/ is the only object that makes SENSE with
/Hech/.  Grammatically, /'e'/ is always an object, and nouns can be objects
too.  There's no GRAMMATICAL reason why some noun can't be the object of
/Hech/, but then there's also no grammatical reason why some noun can't be
the object of, say, /Qong/.  /quS vIQong/ is a grammatical and nonsensical
sentence.

> 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.)

How do you determine that the subject of SENTENCE must be the same as the
subject of /Hech/?  Because two canonical examples do so?  I can imagine
other possibilities.  For instance,

tach wIghoS maH 'e' vIHech jIH.
I intended for us to go to the bar.

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

I think it's simply a matter of identifying the set of semantically allowed
objects for /Hech/.  The problems lie in the odd definition in TKD and the
varying definitions of the English words involved.

SuStel
Stardate 2045.4