tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 16 23:38:31 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

ja' "Sean Healy" <>:
>Using Okrand's explanation on the two {Hech} sentences gives us the
>following result:
><paw> vIHech
>I intend to "He arrives."
><paw> jIjatlh 'e' vIHech
>I intend to that I say <paw>.
>Both sentences are equally odd from an English grammar viewpoint.

The second sentence (the one which makes sense in Klingon) comes out just
fine in English as soon as you recognize that it's valid to translate
{Hech} as "intend" without the "to".  TKD defines it as "intend, mean to".

The "mean to" part obviously says that the verb wants an action as its
object.  I agree with SuStel that *{<paw> vIHech} doesn't work.  But I
think something like the following might be okay:

  lut neH vIHechbe'.  bom vIHech.  ghe'naQ'e' vIHech.


  qeq vIHech.

I'm not going to bother providing any context.  Context can be contrived to
justify almost any oddball usage, and I figure anyone interested enough in
digging into the possibilities here ought to be able to see what I'm
talking about.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level