Re: Verbs from nouns

Herman Miller wrote:


> Are there technical terms for different kinds of verb derivation from noun
> roots? Here are some examples from Lindiga with the -l suffix, which has
> the general meaning of "to put in, to wear".
Generically, I think they're called "denominals".  Of course languages vary
as to what they consider the basis of the derivations.

> floka       "bottle"          ["vlOkA]
> flokalich   "to bottle"       ["vlOkAliC]
> flokaléfi   "bottled"         [%vlOkA"lEvi]
Indonesian follows Engl. here: botol (n.), mem/botol (vb.)
(me+nasal is the active verb prefix)

> kumsa       "grave"           ["kumzA]
> kumsalich   "to bury"         ["kumzAliC]
> kumsalás    "burial"          [%kumzA"lAs]
but not here:  kubur, mengubur vb., kubur/an grave

> English has a few nouns that derive a "put in" verb by zero derivation
> (bottle, can, package), and some with prefixes (encase, entomb, entrap).
> Different kinds of verbs can be derived from other nouns: "apply to"
(glue,
> tape), "hit with" (hammer), "protect with" (shield), "remove from" (peel,
> skin), and others. Not to mention all sorts of quirky derivations like
> "outfox" and "demonize", where you can't really predict the meaning of the
> word from its parts.
I've encountered this problem in Kash, too; but generally  tend to regard
the base form as a stative adj/verb-- so e.g. base "sticky", caus. vb. "to
glue", derived noun "glue"-- but it doesn't work in all cases (like bottle
et al.)