tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 22 11:46:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Fw: Problem with {-meH} and negative meanings
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Fw: Problem with {-meH} and negative meanings
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:39:23 -0600
At 10:37 AM 1/22/98 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>>But here is MO using a personalized verb in a {-meH}+noun construction. I
>>like it a lot. It seems more flexible than the {-bogh} construction.
>
>More flexible? It performs a very different function than {-bogh} and in no
>way replaces it. I hope that is not what you are advocating with this
>statement.
>
You're right, of course. I wrote that thinking only of the fact that
{-bogh} and {-meH} (in this usage) both modify nouns. Their meanings
are certainly very different. I find the {-meH} usage "more flexible"
only in that the head noun of the phrase could conceivably be any
part of speech in the outer (main verb) phrase, while the head noun
of a {-bogh} construction can only be the subject or object of the
outer phrase.
-- ter'eS
>SuStel
>Stardate 98057.7
>
>
>
>
>
>