Re: Question on Géarthnuns grammar (sorta long)

Kou wrote:

>> >> The direct objects of nouns and gerunds are clearly chomeurs
>> >> as well, since it's not possible to passivise nouns and gerunds.
>> >
>> >The eating of the ice cream was seen by me?
>> >The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me?
>>
>> Can you form passive nominalisations in Géarthnuns?  If
>> not, then these examples are irrelevant:  Direct objects of
>> nominalised verbs weould be chomeurs in Géarthnuns but not
>> in English.  (My guess is that you cannot form passivised
>> nominalisations in Géarthnuns, since the passivisation
>> operation is linked to the AUX system, and nominalisations
>> don't include an auxiliary.  Am I right?)
>
>At the risk of misunderstanding you again, I think so? Gerunds are formed by
>taking the verb, reversing the auxiliary, and adding a suffix.
>
>la glozh (eat)  =>  glozh + al + örs  =>  glozhalörs   eating
>
>so:
>
>lat glozh  (be eaten)  =>  glozh + tal + örs  =>  glozhtalörs  being eaten
>
>Chau glozhtalörs cha fusumbansas lét sín tel.
>the being.eaten-nom the ice.cream-gen past/pass I-instr see
>The ice cream's being eaten was seen by me.
>
>In theory, any aux+verb combo could be gerundized, though some forms are
>obviously more commonly used than others.
Ah.  OK, then, "höi" does not mark chomeurs.  If you'd like me
to take another stab at it, maybe you could post a summary of
all the relevant facts, since I've become quite confused now
about where "höi" can and cannot occur.  Otherwise, I give up!  :-)

Matt.