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

DloraH seruq at bellsouth.net
Tue Feb 28 15:40:47 PST 2017

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 12:02 -0500, SuStel wrote:
> 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.*

When I first read [ HIvchu'mo' Heghta' ], the first (and I guess only)
thought that went through my mind was "He (intentionally) died because
he did a suicide attack."  It made sense to me, so I didn't think any
further on it.

(When MO explained -chu' on fighting words, he did not give a definitive
list of words.  He simply said it works on some, but not all.  To me it
does work with HIv.)

- DloraH

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list