On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <sustel@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