[Tlhingan-hol] Tlhingan-hol Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1

[David Trimboli]

On 5/1/2012 7:01 AM, tlhingan-hol-request at stodi.digitalkingdom.org wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses From:
> Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> Date: 5/1/2012 7:01 AM
>
> To: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>, tlhIngan-Hol
> <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
>
>
>>> If you expand a tool so that it can mean several different
>>> things, then the grammar itself begins to convey less meaning.
> ...and if you constrain it too much, it can become less versatile;
> it's a double-edged sword.
>
>>> You seem to be a strong proponent of weakening {-meH} until it
>>> stops indicating a purpose clause and begins instead to vaguely
>>> suggest some sort of poorly defined association with the main
>>> verb.
> I'd argue I'm not a proponent of any such thing. First and foremost,
> I'm speculating and asking the community about what sort of structure
> these sentences appear to exemplify

They exemplify the structure of Okrand thinking in English and not 
considering carefully enough what the sentence actually means. Is that 
not obvious?

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/