[109116] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (DloraH)
Tue Feb 28 18:41:01 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:40:47 -0600
In-Reply-To: <16d85de8-57ce-da01-867a-ac8c8c9accd9@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
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
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
