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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name