Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

taliesin the storyteller wrote:

> * Marcus Smith said on 2001-03-30 04:57:17 +0200
> > I've been inspired by some very interesting work I've been doing on
> > nominalization in Pima. [..] The result is that Telek has gained a
> > more complex nominalization system, and I present it here.
>
> Do you put the nominalized forms in the official vocab or are you
> supposed to nominalize everything on the fly? The reason I ask is that
> my lang has quite a few nominalizers as well and so far some nominalized
> forms have been put in the vocab (nice way to boost total number of
> words :) ) and some haven't...
In Tokana, the nominalization strategies I mentioned in my last post
("-(a)pi", "-(a)ka", "-u") are all completely productive.  You can form new
nominalizations from any verb 'on the fly', as you say.  However, there are
other nominalizing suffixes ("-ol", "-ut", "-mi", "-oi", "-in", "-on", etc.)
which are non-productive and idiosyncratic in their application.  Nouns
derived using these latter suffixes are listed as separate entries in my
Tokana dictionary, while those derived using "-(a)pi", "-(a)ka", and "-u"
generally are not.

Here are some examples of idiosyncratic nominalizations, and the verbs
they're formed from:

  uika       "love"
  uikol      "love"

  opa        "think, believe"
  opol       "opinion, belief"

  puka       "be terrified"
  pukol      "terror"

  kaila      "be hot"
  kailut     "heat"

  halhka     "be dry"
  halhkin    "dry season"

  maina      "think"
  mainin     "thought(s)"

  anatolha   "protect"
  anatolhut  "protection"

  psyta      "spit (up/out)"
  supsytut   "disgust, revulsion"

  loia       "be clear/orderly"
  loimi      "order, clarity, system(aticity)"

  tiasa      "rip up"
  kitiasoi   "shred, scrap"

Matt.