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@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