tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 16 21:45:47 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
- From: "Sean Healy" <sangqar@hotmail.com>
- Subject: Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:45:46 +0000
>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.
That's what I was trying to say. There's no GRAMMATICAL reason, but the
English definition implies that you can't use a noun object.
> > 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.
Well, I didn't think this would be okay, since 1) it splits up the 'intend'
and the 'to', and 2) No canon examples (none I know of) support this use.
Since you seemed to be uncomfortable with examples which lacked the 'to'
when translated into English, I thought you would be equally uncomfortable
with examples that split the word up this way. Guess I thought wrong. (And
I say 'you' here, but I assume this is the general usage.)
> > 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.
That's why I wanted to formulate an exception; basing Klingon on the English
definition makes me uncomfortable, so I wanted to define it in terms of
Klingon grammar. Too bad Okrand wasn't more specific about this.
>SuStel
>Stardate 2045.4
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.