tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 16 23:48:48 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

From: "Alan Anderson" <>
> 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.

Yep, the lack of a "to" for "intend" has been bugging me.  But if you like
/bom vIHech/, why not /<paw> vIHech/?

The only reason I can think of is that the sentence is lacking an elided

<paw> *jIjatlh* 'e' vIHech.

Well, I'll be putting /Hech/ on the shelf right next to /jeS/.  Well, not
quite.  We know how it CAN be used . . . .

Stardate 2045.7

Back to archive top level