{meH}ed nouns and verb prefixes
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. ~ nI'ghma
Am 31.03.2018 um 13:31 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I was under the impression, that {meH}ed nouns as {QongmeH Duj} don't take verb prefixes.
Really? I don't remember such a rule, but I may just have forgotten...
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:
s.e stands for "Star Trek Expert Forum": http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekExpertForum
{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.
That's a very good point. I can't answer that, if it's wrong. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PurposeClauseNouns
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 31.03.2018 um 13:31 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I was under the impression, that {meH}ed nouns as {QongmeH Duj} don't take verb prefixes.
When a noun is modified by a verb + {-meH], the verb can act like an infinitive, as in {pe'meH taj}. But why would this always have to be the case? If the speaker wants to be more specific, as in {qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity for me to visit you," why not? Why would it always have to be {SuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity to visit"? (And with null prefixes, this phrase can also have the more specific meaning "the opportunity for him/her to visit him/her/them" or "the opportunity for them to visit them.") Also, in some cases the verb + {-meH} may also need the {-lu'} suffix. This seems to me like it's necessary if the noun modified by the verb + {-meH} is the thing acted upon, as in, for instance, {qIplu'meH DoS}. ~mIp'av
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
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
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS