tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 05 15:12:42 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Noun phrases (was RE: KLBC: 'ol)
- From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Noun phrases (was RE: KLBC: 'ol)
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:11:17 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Noun phrases (was RE: KLBC: 'ol)
>
>
> ghItlh charghwI':
>
> <<I probably use {-meH} more than anyone else here. It is so
> useful in so many
> settings. Meanwhile, there's one minor point that is merely an
> argument and
> not a conclusive one: I'm pretty sure that in all of Okrand's canon,
> whenever a {-meH} verb is used to adverbially modify another verb, it has
> often been a whole phrase including prefix and perhaps a subject and/or
> object noun, but every time he's used it adjectivally, to describe a noun,
> I've only seen him use {-meH} on a bare verb stem, as in {ghojmeH taj}.
> Essentially, it becomes (if I have my terms right) a gerund for a
> noun-noun
> genitive construction. That makes it a "learning's knife" or more
> smoothly,
> a "knife of learning". I'm not sure it stretches to the point of becoming
> "an opportunity of eating lunch". I think it is smoother as "an
> opportunity
> of lunch".
> >>
>
> IIRC, the phrase Okrand used when he explained this
> construction was {nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb}, so I'm pretty
> sure that the "verbal" form of {-meH} can be paired
> with what superficially appears to be a noun-noun
> construction.
Would you mind pointing me toward the source of this canon you mention? Is
it in KGT? Where? I've been looking for this sort of reference for quite
some time now and have failed to find it and would appreciate it if you
could cite it instead of paraphrasing it so I'd know it really is canon and
not just the newest version of {'I'}.
> I agree about the need for a prefix on
> the verb, though: {narghlI' megh DaSopmeH 'eb!}, or
> maybe {narghlI' megh wISopmeH 'eb}. The analysis of
> {-meH} constructions I did for HolQeD a few years ago
> seemed to indicate that you can use a plain verb for
> impersonal constructions (eg. ghojmeH taj == ghojlu'meH
> taj), but all the examples I had were lacking objects.
> When the {-meH} verb has an object, it's probably safer
> to go with an explicit subject prefix.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
> http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000
> http://www.geocities.com/weseb_2000
charghwI' 'utlh