De'vID:
Where did you get the idea of this "rule" from?
Sometime ago, there was a thread on this list, where {meH}ed nouns were discussed. It wasn't said that there is a *rule*, which prohibits the use of verb prefixes on {meH}ed nouns, but it was said that it would be better not to use them, since they could become confusing. Unfortunately, i can't locate that thread now. De'vID:
I think maybe the idea is that nouns with such prefixes are extemporaneous constructions
What are "extemporaneous constructions" ? ~ nI'ghma On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:46 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 March 2018 at 13:31, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I was under the impression, that {meH}ed nouns as {QongmeH Duj} don't take verb prefixes.
However, a little bird told me that on "s.e. 1998.01.18" (whatever the ghe''or "s.e." actually is..), there is the canon sentence of:
{jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb}
because I'm very late, the opportunity to visit you has escaped
And here, we *do* have a verb prefix on a {meH}ed noun.
Where did you get the idea of this "rule" from?
I think maybe the idea is that nouns with such prefixes are extemporaneous constructions, and wouldn't be found in a dictionary. I don't recall that anyone has said that they're illegal?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org