Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Active and passive NOUNS in Tech

From:David Peterson <thatbluecat@...>
Date:Wednesday, April 14, 2004, 7:38
Dan (?) wrote:

<<Tech verbs and adjectives mark with a low vowel: @, i (< @j) or u (< @w);
activity is marked by a high vowel: a, e (< aj) or o (< aw):


So does this sound reasonable? Any natlang precedent?>>

I don't think the answer to both these questions need be the same.   For the
latter question, I'd guess no.   There   might be a small subset of words in a
language that might do something that kind of looks like this (specifically
the *specific* vowel changes you listed related to the *specific* meaning you
listed), but I would expect to never find it.   There are two "however"'s,

However Number 1: There's no reason why your language can't do
this--especially if it's already established in the verbal/adjectival paradigms.   In fact,
I'd expect it to extend to the nominal system.

However Number 2: Leaving the phonological alternation aside, the idea that
you can have active vs. passive verbs, adjectives, *and* nouns I think is
rather uncontroversial, and I'm sure that every language makes this distinction at
some level.   Does any language do it as systematically and productively as
what you propose?   Probably not.   But that doesn't mean it can't be systematic
and productive in Tech.   How it would work with nouns that are basically
nouns (like dog) will probably be a case-by-case kind of thing, but at the least
you could have deverbals.   So, you gave the examples of:

X\w@l "he perished"
X\wal "he destroyed"

Let's say you add a suffix /-t/, and you get:

X\w@lt "one who perishes/has perished"
X\walt "one who destroys, destroyer"

Seems like it would work out quite nicely.

"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison