[tlhIngan Hol] {meH}ed nouns and verb prefixes

[mayqel qunenoS]

De'vID:
> Where did you get the idea of this "rule" from?

Sometime ago, there was a thread on this list, where {meH}ed nouns
were discussed. It wasn't said that there is a *rule*, which prohibits
the use of verb prefixes on {meH}ed nouns, but it was said that it
would be better not to use them, since they could become confusing.
Unfortunately, i can't locate that thread now.

De'vID:
> I think maybe the idea is that nouns with such prefixes are extemporaneous constructions

What are "extemporaneous constructions" ?

~ nI'ghma

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:46 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 31 March 2018 at 13:31, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression, that {meH}ed nouns as {QongmeH Duj} don't take
>> verb prefixes.
>>
>>
>> However, a little bird told me that on "s.e. 1998.01.18" (whatever the
>> ghe''or "s.e." actually is..), there is the canon sentence of:
>>
>>
>> {jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb}
>>
>> because I'm very late, the opportunity to visit you has escaped
>>
>>
>> And here, we *do* have a verb prefix on a {meH}ed noun.
>
>
> Where did you get the idea of this "rule" from?
>
> I think maybe the idea is that nouns with such prefixes are extemporaneous
> constructions, and wouldn't be found in a dictionary. I don't recall that
> anyone has said that they're illegal?
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>