[111292] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Hech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Sat Sep 30 05:10:58 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <b9d3451d-be98-cde9-26ad-85627193b33d@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:51:42 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============5805748409409950284==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045fbc1c82d4be055a57ad04"
--f403045fbc1c82d4be055a57ad04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <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.)
--f403045fbc1c82d4be055a57ad04
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:40 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span=
> wrote:<span class=3D""></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D=
"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p>I do think there are ways to use <b>Hech</=
b> that don't involve
<b>'e'.</b> Here's an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>nablIj wIlajchugh qaS Qugh. nab vIHechbogh jIH wIlajchugh
maQapchu'.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"></span><br></p></blockquote></=
div></blockquote><div><b>toH!</b> So the question here is not whether <b>He=
ch</b> needs a <b>'e'</b>, but more specifically whether a quoted w=
ord itself can be considered as an intended outcome, with the implication o=
f something intended to have been written or spoken. <br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>(This is the sort of situation where the "avoid being too Engl=
ishy" lobe of my brain starts acting up. Is this an English affectatio=
n 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 c=
omes up a lot for me.)<br></div></div><br></div></div>
--f403045fbc1c82d4be055a57ad04--
--===============5805748409409950284==
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
--===============5805748409409950284==--
