>Well, there *are* morphological changes to the "prefix" that you don't
>know about--in some cases rather radical changes. For example, the
>verb meaning "run to" is "penta", while the bound morpheme meaning
>"running" is "pa-". (I remain agnostic on whether "pa-" is a reduced
>form of "penta", or whether "penta" is an irregular formation from
>"pa-" + "eta" = "go to".)
>As far as whether we're talking about prefixing or compounding, I really
>don't care what you call it. But if it's compounding, then the first
>element in the compound sometimes undergoes radical phonological
>alteration, as in the above example.
Okay. :-)
>>You could vary the order of the roots for stylistic purposes.
>>sneak + enter = sneak in enter + sneak = enter
>>surreptitiously
>>chug + exit = chug out exit + chug = exit with the
>>sound of active machinery
>I don't really understand the semantic differences here.
There aren't any basic semantic differences; the distinction I was trying
to convey was informal vs. formal. Sorry I wasn't clear.
>As a general response to your comments and And's: I think there
>may have been a misunderstanding here. I was merely presenting
>a scheme for *grammaticalising* different conflations of manner
>and trajectory--for deriving new lexical items. The language also
>provides other means of expressing events where both manner
>and trajectory are specified: For example, you could use a manner
>verb together with a locative noun expressing a spatial relation.
>The following two sentences, for example, are roughly synonymous:
> Na pa-lhuye-i kotoi
> he running-entered-the room:DAT
> "He ran into the room"
> lit. "He entered the room runningly"
> Na pente-i himai kotu
> he ran-the interior:DAT room
> "He ran into the room"
> lit. "He ran to the room('s) interior"
>Matt
I can't see anything unworkable about either scheme, or any reason why
Tokana couldn't use both. Personally, I like them both.