Re: CHAT: Telek nominalization

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.
>