[110272] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] HeghmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Aug 3 10:58:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:57:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKO=dfCCnhF21wWFR_bHCbiuYRL=qbWPr6y-feMPKYL8A@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0313473867582505266==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E5E4A513B1C7AA6C28407A76"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E5E4A513B1C7AA6C28407A76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/3/2017 10:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> In tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal".
>
> Does this mean that whenever someone uses it, he *has* to use it in
> order to say that "something is fatal" ? And thus only use it as a be
> verb ?
>
> Can't someone use it in order to say "something/someone caused
> something/someone to die" ? And so use it in a transitive way ?
I don't think *HeghmoH* is a "be" verb.
I think *HeghmoH* is a sort of passive version of *HoH. HoH* says /this
thing does this./ *HeghmoH* is more like /he's dead because of this
thing./ This is just my gut feeling on the matter, not a rule.
You could say *HeghmoH tar*/poison is fatal,/ but you couldn't say **tar
HeghmoH* /fatal poison./
If a first officer assassinates a captain for weakness, you'd say *HoD
HoH yaS wa'DIch*/the first officer kills the captain,/ not *HoD HeghmoH
yaS wa'DIch*/the first officer is fatal to the captain,/ even though the
sentence is perfectly grammatical. Again, this is just my opinion.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------E5E4A513B1C7AA6C28407A76
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/3/2017 10:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKO=dfCCnhF21wWFR_bHCbiuYRL=qbWPr6y-feMPKYL8A@mail.gmail.com">In
tkd {HeghmoH} is given as "be fatal".
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Does this mean that whenever someone uses it, he
*has* to use it in order to say that "something is fatal" ? And
thus only use it as a be verb ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Can't someone use it in order to say
"something/someone caused something/someone to die" ? And so use
it in a transitive way ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think <b>HeghmoH</b> is a "be" verb.</p>
<p>I think <b>HeghmoH</b> is a sort of passive version of <b>HoH.
HoH</b> says <i>this thing does this.</i> <b>HeghmoH</b> is
more like <i>he's dead because of this thing.</i> This is just my
gut feeling on the matter, not a rule.</p>
<p>You could say <b>HeghmoH tar</b><i> poison is fatal,</i> but you
couldn't say <b>*tar HeghmoH</b> <i>fatal poison.</i></p>
<p>If a first officer assassinates a captain for weakness, you'd say
<b>HoD HoH yaS wa'DIch</b><i> the first officer kills the captain,</i>
not <b>HoD HeghmoH yaS wa'DIch</b><i> the first officer is fatal
to the captain,</i> even though the sentence is perfectly
grammatical. Again, this is just my opinion.<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>
--------------E5E4A513B1C7AA6C28407A76--
--===============0313473867582505266==
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
--===============0313473867582505266==--
