[tlhIngan Hol] doubly {-meH}ed nouns

[Jeffrey Clark]

charghwI’, yIlaDchu’.

> On May 14, 2019, at 20:29, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My sense (admitting my inexperience) is that the {‘ej} use should be avoided for statements of a causal relationship (like mayqel’s, if my interpretation of his statement is correct). As you posit, there are more clear ways of indicating the relationship between the process, the training, and the thinning; however, (and ironically) a nested -meH statement would end up being more compact in this case; and I feel that it would signal the causal link more strongly.
> 
> {QangvaD langmoHmeH qeqmeH mIw vInab} — (invalid/questionable construction) “For the chancellor I devised a process for training for thinning.” Or more naturally: “I devised a thinning training process for the chancellor.”
> 
> {langmeH Qang qeqnIS, ghaHvaD qeqmeH mIw vInab} — “For the chancellor to be thin, he needs to train. I’ve devised a process for training for him.”


{put up or shut up} Dajatlh, ‘a wejHa’ wIta’pu’. Datu’be’ba’.

—jevreH