Which nouns make sense in a {[verb]meH [noun]} phrase?

In a discussion in Facebook, someone asked to translate "Tell me why you did that" and I suggested {DamaghmeH meqlIj yIDel} "describe your reason for betraying him".

Somebody corrected me that the noun in such a phrase should be some kind of tool, as in {pe'meH taj} and {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}.

Is there any evidence for or against any of this?

I feel that {maghmeH meq} sounds reasonable (no pun intended) but others don't.

Most of our examples seem to follow the pattern that purpose clauses attached to nouns are theoretically infinitive—they don't have subjects or prefixes—while purpose clauses attached to verbs are finite.

So, ja'chuqmeH rojHom truce to confer, but maja'chuqmeH maghom we meet to confer.

I believe there are counterexamples, so take that with a grain of salt, but I think that's the basic idea.

As for maghmeH meq, I don't like it because your motive doesn't have the purpose of betraying; your motive leads to betraying. In ja'chuqmeH rojHom the purpose of the truce is conferring. In pe'meH taj, the purpose of the knife is cutting. -meH on a noun describes the mission of that noun. The mission of your motive is not to betray; the cause of your betrayal is your motive.

I wouldn't translate tell me why you did that! so literally. I'd just say qatlh Data'pu'? why did you do it? If the original action done were specified (tell me why you betrayed him!), I'd use a better verb: qatlh Damaghpu'? why did you betray him? If I absolutely had to include the tell me! part, I'd just add a HIja'! at the end of it or, if I don't want it to be confused with yes, I'd say jIHvaD yIja'! And if it truly, unfairly had to be a single sentence about telling, I'd say jIHvaD maghpu'ghach meq yIja' tell me your betrayal motive! And if you insisted that, nononono, not just betrayal but betraying him, I'd say go away, I'm done.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name