Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
>
> Charles wrote :
> DEL has no passive but an *antipassive* and
> TOM looks like that since *femo vadu* seems to mean
> *the girl attracts* rather than *the girl is gone to by*.
Yes: it is the same effect, she is definitely fatale.
TOM abuses proper linguistic terminology whenever possible.
> I think it's difficult to cram a factitive voice in TOM's verbs
> because it would break the nice bipolar arrangement so I suggest :
> *viro faciu meso vadu femo*
> *femo vadi meso facui viro*
I wonder if you mean X-rated "femo venio facvirai meso".
(A good use of the gerunds, -io and -uo.) I've tried
using -iu and -ui as "reflexive" and "mutual" voices.
> But this does not allow a straight deriving like would be :
>
> active : to see >< to appear : (anti)passive
> active factitive : to show >< to display : passive factitive
>
> for that you need a third argument and this would impair TOM's symetry.
Now I see what you mean. Yes, the lack of a dative case hurts.
I would use a second verb or an adverbial phrase for it,
"subject MAKES object BE-SEEN-BY dative". Pidginesque.
> For subclauses (not adjectives) I suggest *o* as 'the latter' :
> *viro, o faciu femo vadi meso*
> *femo, viro faciu o vadi meso*
> *meso, femo vadi o facui viro*
> etc. etc.
Hmm ... I must study this further.