tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 06 14:20:30 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}

charghwI' writes:
> Terrence Donnelly wrote:
[..]
>> We seem agreed that the {-meH} verb phrase is impersonal.  I can see
>> why charghwI' adds {-lu'}, but I don't agree it is needed. 
>>
>Then we definitely disagree. I believe that the verb with
>{-meH} can either be used with no prefix, no subject and no
>object, where it is treated as an infinitive by Okrand in
>several examples, or it can have a subject and/or object and it
>must have an appropriate prefix, or {-lu'}. 

Actually, regarding this second form (where the {-meH} verb is a complete 
verb phrase), I've always thought it should be treated as fully verbal, and
the
{-meH} verb should always have the appropriate prefix (or {-lu'}).  However,
it's been the policy on this list to accept such verbs without prefixes.  I've
bowed to that policy, and I've done it myself, but I'd really rather see it
go back to the fully verbal idea: when a {-meH} phrase precedes the main
verb, it _must_ be marked for subject by the appropriate prefix, an explicit
noun,
or by {-lu'}.
[..]
>> Okrand
>> has used the {-meH} construction impersonally without {-lu'}, as in
>> {ghojmeH taj}, {pe'meH taj}, and I don't think it's needed in this case.
>>
>True, but these examples also do not have subjects or objects
>for the verb with {-meH}. It is a fundamentally different use
>of these verbs, undescribed by the rules in TKD, but very
>consistent in Okrand's useage.

I was looking over my notes, and I found the canon phrase {nargh
qaSuchmeH 'eb} (from a MO MSN posting).  Now, is
this the same usage as the infinitive usage above, and if not, why not?
Both {ghojmeH} and {qaSuchmeH} are modifying a noun.  Why does one
take a prefix and the other not? Or are we to understand {ghojmeH taj} as a
shortened form of something like ??{ghojmeH vay''e' taj} (using {-'e'} to mark
the subject of {ghojmeH} like we do with {-bogh} verbs).    

I guess my point here is that Okrand has used {-meH} verbs as noun modifiers
without any obvious subject in a way that seems impersonal to me, and
also used them as noun modifiers with stated subjects and objects.  It seems
to
me that this means that the "infinitive" usage is _not_ a special case but is
just another form of the usual {-meH} construction.  I guess what I'd like to
see is if Okrand has ever used {-meH} as a dependent verb phrase with an
impersonal meaning and no prefix or {-lu'}.  

It boils down to two questions: does the {-meH} construction behave the same
way
when it is a verb phrase and when it is modifying a noun, or are there
different
rules for the two usages; and, can the impersonal be rendered in {-meH}
constructions by no actual prefix, or is {-lu'} required?

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level