<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/1/2019 3:38 PM, Will Martin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C116BBDF-3CCE-4C01-8AA1-3F14EB898C59@mac.com">
<div class="">Okay, so count up how many times he’s given an
infinitive-like {-meH} verb describing a noun vs. how many times
he’s given a verb with {-meH} describing a noun a subject and/or
object. It’s certainly a strong trend, if not a law.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Generally, looking at the use of {-meH} in canon,
Okrand often makes a full purpose clause to describe the purpose
of the action of a verb, but he nearly always uses a lone verb
with {-meH} to give the purpose of a noun.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Do we act prescriptively or descriptively? Do we
take a single counter-example as cause to reverse an observed
trend and forget it ever happened?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Don't throw the prescriptivist argument at me, mister "I know
what Okrand said but it's just ugly." Okrand nearly always uses <b>-meH</b>
to modify verbs (sentences) instead of nouns, so our pool of
unambiguous examples is too small to declare a trend. But he has
used it to modify nouns, and in both places he has used it with
and without arguments.</p>
<p>What we do is not tell people that they've done something
ungrammatical when they clearly haven't. If you want to always use
"infinite" purpose clauses on nouns and never "split" genitive
phrases with modifying clauses, that's your prerogative, but
there's ample evidence out there that the rules you're claiming
aren't actually rules; they're just patterns you're
overgeneralizing.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>