[tlhIngan Hol] difference in {-meH}ing intransitive verbs

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:19 PM Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:

> The problem is that you are tossing us a sentence fragment and asking us
> what it means without any context.
>
> I was presuming you meant something like {bIrmeH betgham jan vISuq.}
>

I think mayqel is talking about something like *QalmeH DoQmIv'a'* "swimming
pool, large basin for the purpose of swimming", where the purpose clause
modifies a noun, and the noun isn't the subject of the verb with *-meH**.*
I can see what he's getting at. In the case of *bIrmeH betgham*, it's the
same basic construction as *QalmeH DoQmIv'a'* or SuStel's example of *QongmeH
pa'*, with an intransitive verb in a purpose clause modifying a noun that
is not the subject of the purpose clause. The liquid is apparently for the
purpose of something being cold, but the liquid itself isn't necessarily
what's cold.

I'm not sure why you would prefer *bIrmeH betgham* over something like
*bIrmoHbogh
betgham*. Perhaps the former phrasing focuses on the desired end state,
while the latter focuses on the change of state. Or perhaps the liquid has
the purpose of keeping something cold, but in an indirect way that wouldn't
necessarily justify using *-moH*. Maybe it's a poetic flair to evoke a
general coldness. Maybe it's a poetic flair to make the sentence fit the
meter. It's an unusual construction, and I'm not sure what contexts it
would work best in, but I can't really say it's grammatically *wrong*, per
se. Purpose clauses with nouns are not fully understood.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191003/6d2cebbe/attachment-0002.htm>