Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: adj/adv phrases, was inalienable possession

From:charles <catty@...>
Date:Monday, November 23, 1998, 0:29
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.