On 9/29/2017 1:23 PM, SuStel wrote:

On 9/29/2017 1:12 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

...

The verb {Hech} is given as "intend, mean to".

However I wonder.. does it always have to have the meaning "mean to" ?

For example, can we say:

{{juH} vIHechbe'; {jul} vIHech} I didn't mean {juH}, I meant {jul}

Everyone uses it that way, but I'm not so sure. I think the object of *Hech* is a thing you intended to happen or to do, not a thing you intended to say or write. Saying and writing are things you do, but they require their own sentences; the actual content is not something you do.

We know that *'e' Hech* is perfectly legal. *Hem tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech*/Klingons are a proud race, and we intend to go on being proud./ (TKW) There is one other *'e' Hech* example in TKW, and no other examples of *Hech* elsewhere at all.

I would expect saying or doing to be /*juH*/*vIghItlh 'e' vIHechbe'; /juH/ vIghItlh 'e' vIHech.* I'm on the fence whether saying would require a sentence-as-object-as-object: /*juH*/*jIjatlh 'e' vIHechbe'; /jul/ jIjatlh 'e' vIHech* or whether a single word doesn't need to be treated as a quotation because it's not exactly a sentence anyway.

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'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/29/2017 1:51 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto: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

On 9/29/2017 1:25 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

The verb {Hech} is given as "intend, mean to".

However I wonder.. does it always have to have the meaning "mean to" ?

For example, can we say:

{{juH} vIHechbe'; {jul} vIHech} I didn't mean {juH}, I meant {jul}

Makes sense to me. At worst, I'd probably interpret it as a short or clipped version of something like *<juH> vIghItlh 'e' vIHechbe'. <jul> vIghItlh 'e' vIHech.* /"I didn't mean to write 'juH', I meant to write 'jul'." /(Or replace *vIghItlh* with *jIjatlh* for spoken Klingon.) My guess is that most uses of *Hech* will have an *'e'*, but I don't see why it couldn't work with a noun object now and then.

A clipped form of something long that just /happens/ to exactly resemble something shorter that is the Englishy way you want to say it anyway is just a /little/ too convenient for my tastes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/29/2017 1:43 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:32 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

A clipped form of something long that just /happens/ to exactly resemble something shorter that is the Englishy way you want to say it anyway is just a /little/ too convenient for my tastes.

You have a good point about being too Englishy, and it's good to keep in mind. But on the other hand, it's not like English is the only language that shortens things, and using *Hech *with a noun object that represents some sort of intended outcome doesn't seem to me to stretch the basic idea of the verb so much that a Klingon would only consider it after too much exposure to *DIvI' Hol*.

No, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch, and if that's how it works, then that's fine. I'm just saying let's not go down the clipping-to-make-it-work-like-English-because-that's-easier route, which we have wrestled with before on this list. As I said, my strongest reaction to the initial question was a mere "I'm not so sure." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name