[tlhIngan Hol] Hech

[SuStel]

On 9/29/2017 1:51 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     I do think there are ways to use *Hech* that don't involve *'e'.*
>     Here's an example:
>
>         nablIj wIlajchugh qaS Qugh. nab vIHechbogh jIH wIlajchugh
>         maQapchu'.
>
> *toH!* So the question here is not whether *Hech* needs a *'e'*, but 
> more specifically whether a quoted word itself can be considered as an 
> intended outcome, with the implication of something intended to have 
> been written or spoken.
>
> (This is the sort of situation where the "avoid being too Englishy" 
> lobe of my brain starts acting up. Is this an English affectation I 
> should avoid? Or is it the sort of obvious metaphor that most 
> languages might develop naturally and I'm just being needlessly 
> pedantic? This comes up a lot for me.)

That is the question for me, yes. It's possible that only *'e'* and 
*net* are allowed; it's possible that anything you intend to /do/ or 
/happen/ is allowed, whether represented by single nouns or whole 
sentences; it's possible that even quoted speech and writing is allowed. 
But when people say things like /*jul*/*vIHech,* I hear them discarding 
the /mean to/ part of the definition to get it to match English. It's 
very unclear, and needs Okrandian clarification.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170929/6cf802dc/attachment-0017.htm>