<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/28/2017 11:51 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:34109c12-22d6-c104-7e00-60b180e9dde1@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">On 27 February
2017 at 14:41, Lieven <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:levinius@gmx.de"><levinius@gmx.de></a>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">I certainly do
know that we can never be 100% sure without help from Maltz
<br>
or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have
better
<br>
examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in
the Heghbat
<br>
Ritual.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Am 28.02.2017 um 17:38 schrieb De'vID:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">HIvchu'mo'
Heghta'.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You mean like {targh vIHIvchu'mo', Heghta' targh}?
<br>
<br>
Still looks strange to me</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The explanation of <b>-ta'</b> says "the implication [is] that
someone set out to do something and in fact did it." Presumably,
the <i>something</i> of that explanation is the action described
by the verb.</p>
<p>If that is the case, then <b>Heghta' targh</b> makes no sense.
The <b>targh</b> does the action <b>Hegh,</b> but does not set
out to do it. Whether someone else set out to make the targ die is
not what the explanation of <b>-ta'</b> addresses (that sounds
more like <b>-moH</b>). You can only say <b>Heghpu' targh.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>