Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

I've rethought the system. I've added another nominalizer and shifted some
boundaries around.

Three have remained unchanged:
-n subject-oriented (agentive, according to traditional terminology)
-k makes a language name (though not strictly a nominalizer anymore, since
it can be attached to nouns)
-m object-orientd -- it can only be used for the direct object of the verb

The changes:

Instrumental: -atap
It refers to an instrument used in performing the action of the verb.

na'ni 'cook' -> ba-na'ni-tap 'cooking utensil'
lisa 'sing' -> ag-lisa-tap 'singing voice'

Locational: -anag
It refers to a location involved in performing the action of the verb.

na'ni 'cook' ->  ngo-na'ni-nag  'kitchen'
ydla'as 'walk' -> mii-ydla'as-anag  'destination, place you walk to'
ydla'as 'walk' -> ad-ydla'as-anag 'point-of-origin, place you walk from'

This system has no way to nominalize based on goals, benefactives, and
comtiatives; and that is the way I'm keeping things. These types of things
have to be expressed through the use of verbs that treat them as a subject
or direct object. For example, instead of saying 'one who s.o gives s.t.
to', one would say 'one who receives s.t'.


On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, J Matthew Pearson wrote:


> Hmmm... Sounds to me like applied arguments are kind of 'surfacy' direct objects,
> since they do surfacy (case-related) things like passivize and trigger
> agreement; while regular objects are 'deep' direct objects, since they do
> deep (thematic role-related) things like act as the target for possessor
> raising.
I'm not sure how diagnostic that is. Subjects also allow possessor
raising and arguments of applicatives can be incorporated, which you would
expect of a deep object rather than a surface one. (I have in mind the
fact that some languages can incorporate the subject of an unaccusative
but not the subject of an unergative.)

>   ax-[boy]-na'ni-n  "one who cooks for boys"  (or would it be "[boy]-ax-na'ni-n"?)
>   ax-[boy]-na'ni-tap  "that which is cooked for boys"  ("[boy]-ax-na'ni-tap"?)
LOL!

You couldn't know, but the agentive example you used means "one who cooks
boys for [3rd inanimate]". It sounds like a crazy guy who cooks children
for his pet rock. :) The second one would mean: "that
which is cooked boys for [3rd inanimate]". Doesn't make much sense. :)

You guesses in parenthesis were correct.
si'to-ax-na'ni-n "one who cooks for boys"
si'to-ax-na'ni-tap "that which is cooked for boys"

Under the current system, they would be:
si'to-ax-na'ni-n "one who cooks for boys"
si'to-ax-na'ni-m "that which is cooked for boys"

Not much different from my previous proposal in these examples.

Marcus