difference in {-meH}ing intransitive verbs
Is there any difference between {-meH}ing a transitive, and {-meH}ing an intransitive verb ? leghmeH paq book in order to see bIrmeH betgham liquid in order to be cold The only difference that I see, is that in {-meH}ing an intransitive verb, the meaning's unclear with regards to "who's to be cold". Am I missing something here ? Is there anything more I should know ? ~ bara'qa'
On 10/3/2019 9:44 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Is there any difference between {-meH}ing a transitive, and {-meH}ing an intransitive verb ?
leghmeH paq book in order to see
bIrmeH betgham liquid in order to be cold
The only difference that I see, is that in {-meH}ing an intransitive verb, the meaning's unclear with regards to "who's to be cold".
Am I missing something here ? Is there anything more I should know ?
Hoch DaSov. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 10/3/2019 9:44 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Is there any difference between {-meH}ing a transitive, and {-meH}ing an intransitive verb ?
leghmeH paq book in order to see
bIrmeH betgham liquid in order to be cold
The only difference that I see, is that in {-meH}ing an intransitive verb, the meaning's unclear with regards to "who's to be cold".
Am I missing something here ? Is there anything more I should know ?
Did you mean *bIrmoHmeH betgham*/liquid for making (something) cold?/ That's not intransitive. Here's an intransitive *-meH* verb: *QongmeH pa'*/bedroom./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The problem is that you are tossing us a sentence fragment and asking us what it means without any context. I was presuming you meant something like {bIrmeH betgham jan vISuq.} I seek and find a device for the purpose of the liquid being cold. Even this is ambiguous because it either means: I seek and find an in-order-that-the-liquid-is-cold device. What kind of device do I seek? I seek one that has the purpose of resulting in the cold liquid. or It could mean I seek a device, in order that the liquid is cold. Why am I looking for the device? I’m looking for the purpose of the liquid being cold. Note that in neither case does the device need to make the liquid cold. It could be a thermos. Something else could make it cold. The device merely keeps it cold. Or maybe the device collects a cold liquid. Again, it doesn’t have to make it cold. Either the device has the purpose of the liquid being cold, or my seeking the device has the purpose of the liquid being cold. Anyway, if you gave us a sentence that contained the phrase you are working with, we’d understand you better and would be less likely to jump to assumptions. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
Did you mean bIrmoHmeH betgham liquid for making (something) cold?
No, indeed I meant {bIrmeH betgham}. I know it sounds strange, but I couldn't think anything better to be used as an example with an intransitive verb.
- bara'qa' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:19 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
The problem is that you are tossing us a sentence fragment and asking us what it means without any context.
I was presuming you meant something like {bIrmeH betgham jan vISuq.}
I think mayqel is talking about something like *QalmeH DoQmIv'a'* "swimming pool, large basin for the purpose of swimming", where the purpose clause modifies a noun, and the noun isn't the subject of the verb with *-meH**.* I can see what he's getting at. In the case of *bIrmeH betgham*, it's the same basic construction as *QalmeH DoQmIv'a'* or SuStel's example of *QongmeH pa'*, with an intransitive verb in a purpose clause modifying a noun that is not the subject of the purpose clause. The liquid is apparently for the purpose of something being cold, but the liquid itself isn't necessarily what's cold. I'm not sure why you would prefer *bIrmeH betgham* over something like *bIrmoHbogh betgham*. Perhaps the former phrasing focuses on the desired end state, while the latter focuses on the change of state. Or perhaps the liquid has the purpose of keeping something cold, but in an indirect way that wouldn't necessarily justify using *-moH*. Maybe it's a poetic flair to evoke a general coldness. Maybe it's a poetic flair to make the sentence fit the meter. It's an unusual construction, and I'm not sure what contexts it would work best in, but I can't really say it's grammatically *wrong*, per se. Purpose clauses with nouns are not fully understood.
Like liquid nitrogen is a cooling liquid? A to-be-cold liquid. If it’s not liquid, it’s not cold. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Oct 3, 2019, at 8:21 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:19 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote: The problem is that you are tossing us a sentence fragment and asking us what it means without any context.
I was presuming you meant something like {bIrmeH betgham jan vISuq.}
I think mayqel is talking about something like QalmeH DoQmIv'a' "swimming pool, large basin for the purpose of swimming", where the purpose clause modifies a noun, and the noun isn't the subject of the verb with -meH. I can see what he's getting at. In the case of bIrmeH betgham, it's the same basic construction as QalmeH DoQmIv'a' or SuStel's example of QongmeH pa', with an intransitive verb in a purpose clause modifying a noun that is not the subject of the purpose clause. The liquid is apparently for the purpose of something being cold, but the liquid itself isn't necessarily what's cold.
I'm not sure why you would prefer bIrmeH betgham over something like bIrmoHbogh betgham. Perhaps the former phrasing focuses on the desired end state, while the latter focuses on the change of state. Or perhaps the liquid has the purpose of keeping something cold, but in an indirect way that wouldn't necessarily justify using -moH. Maybe it's a poetic flair to evoke a general coldness. Maybe it's a poetic flair to make the sentence fit the meter. It's an unusual construction, and I'm not sure what contexts it would work best in, but I can't really say it's grammatically wrong, per se. Purpose clauses with nouns are not fully understood.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin