[tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Feb 28 09:02:48 PST 2017

On 2/28/2017 11:51 AM, Lieven wrote:
>> On 27 February 2017 at 14:41, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from 
>>> Maltz
>>> or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have better
>>> examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the Heghbat
>>> Ritual.
> Am 28.02.2017 um 17:38 schrieb De'vID:
>> HIvchu'mo' Heghta'.
> You mean like {targh vIHIvchu'mo', Heghta' targh}?
> Still looks strange to me

The explanation of *-ta'* says "the implication [is] that someone set 
out to do something and in fact did it." Presumably, the /something/ of 
that explanation is the action described by the verb.

If that is the case, then *Heghta' targh* makes no sense. The *targh* 
does the action *Hegh,* but does not set out to do it. Whether someone 
else set out to make the targ die is not what the explanation of *-ta'* 
addresses (that sounds more like *-moH*). You can only say *Heghpu' targh.*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170228/579602e8/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list