Aaaargh! Who are you replying to?
> ---Original Message----
> Marcus Smith wrote:
Who said this? A?
> Based on what I know about other languages with applicatives--in which
> the argument that is added by the applicative morphology takes on the
> properties of a direct object--I would have expected "-m" to be used
> for these guys, giving contrasts like:
>
> na'ni-m "that which is cooked"
> ax-na'ni-m "one who is cooked-for"
Who said this? B, as answer to A?
> I should have realized you wouldn't let that slip by. :) This was, in
> fact, how the system looked when I started working on this topic, but
> I quickly decided it wasn't very interesting.
A?
> But then, I don't know how applicatives work in Telek (could we have a
> lesson?).
Is this B again?
> Sure, but it will have to wait for a little while.
A?
> Do applied arguments have any object properties in this language, or are they
> treated as obliques?
B?
> They are treated like objects as far as verbal agreement and
> passivization is concerned. However, applied arguments and regular
> objects have the same possibilities in regards to incorporation
> (though you can't have two nouns incorporated into one verb). On the
> other hand, you cannot possessor raise out of an applied argument, but
> you can out of an object
A?
> Maybe your idea is that the choice of nominalizing suffix is based
> not on grammatical relations (subject, object, oblique), but on
> semantic relations? If so, then you should probably rename the
> subject-oriented and object-oriented forms "agent-oriented" and
> "patient-oriented", respectively. Hence "-n" is added to a verb X to
> form a noun denoting the agent of X, while "-m" forms nouns denoting
> the patient of X, and "-atap" forms nouns denoting some non-agent
> non-patient participant:
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Is this A or C?
> I could imagine constructions like this (here I'm pretending that "maka"
> means "meat", not knowing the Telek word):
>
> maka na'ni-n "one who cooks meat"
> maka ax-na'ni-tap "one for whom meat is cooked"
I don't like having to bitch about etiquette but what is so terrible
about quoting in a way that make it possible for other people to
read? (Not to mention automatic highlighting.) Is it a mortal sin
or something? Don't you -want- other people to be able to read your
messages? Even in offline text, a round of question-answer is marked
better than that! Not that you are the only one on this list that
quote in, ah, creative ways... Oh, and the support for lines longer
than 80 caharacters is not guaranteed, ppl might just see the first
80 signs if they're unlucky with their "choice" of software.
t.