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.

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.

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?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




On May 1, 2019, at 3:18 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/1/2019 3:13 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{nay’ DIlmeH Huch} is not a noun-noun construction. It’s not a “genitive” (termed “possessive” in TKD). It is money for-the-purpose-of-buying-a-dish-of-food. It’s money with a mission.

Note that this is an uncommon construction, probably not justified by canon, because the general rule is that while a verb with {-meH} can describe the purpose of a noun or it can describe the purpose of a verb, there is a distinctive difference in form depending on whether it describes a noun or a verb.

When it describes a noun, the verb with {-meH} will, in all examples I’ve seen, NOT HAVE A SUBJECT OR OBJECT.

Untrue.

qaSuchmeH 'eb opportunity for me to visit you.
http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org