Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

From:SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <smithma@...>
Date:Friday, March 30, 2001, 21:23
Sorry about that. I responded to that message using a web-based mail
thingy that the university provides. I did not realize it doesn't
automatically quote. For now on, I use telnet when I'm not at home.


On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, taliesin the storyteller wrote:

> 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. >