[109114] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Feb 28 12:03:21 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:02:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <34109c12-22d6-c104-7e00-60b180e9dde1@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7494438654816448020==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------8BA9E0911355A67EAED46633"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8BA9E0911355A67EAED46633
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------8BA9E0911355A67EAED46633
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<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>
--------------8BA9E0911355A67EAED46633--
--===============7494438654816448020==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============7494438654816448020==--
