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

[Ed Bailey]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 31.03.2018 um 13:31 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
> > I was under the impression, that {meH}ed nouns as {QongmeH Duj} don't
> > take verb prefixes.
>

When a noun is modified by a verb + {-meH], the verb can act like an
infinitive, as in {pe'meH taj}. But why would this always have to be the
case? If the speaker wants to be more specific, as in {qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the
opportunity for me to visit you," why not? Why would it always have to be
{SuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity to visit"? (And with null prefixes, this
phrase can also have the more specific meaning "the opportunity for him/her
to visit him/her/them" or "the opportunity for them to visit them.")
Also, in some cases the verb + {-meH} may also need the  {-lu'} suffix.
This seems to me like it's necessary if the noun modified by the verb +
{-meH} is the thing acted upon, as in, for instance, {qIplu'meH DoS}.

~mIp'av
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180331/2e79f7fa/attachment-0017.htm>