Re: Languages without verbs

Henrik wrote:

> If verbs are simply replaced by suffixes, i.e., the word status
> changed to affix status, then I'd be tempted to call those affixes
> verbs anyway and simply say that verbs are affixes, not words on their
> own.
Good point. Since this is not my own language, and not finished anyway, I
cannot say that you are wrong. What I understand from his ideas so far,
however, it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

The suffixes are definitely going to be a closed class, probably just a
few variants as I understand it. These will not quite be comparable with
Japanese "suru", since the suffix will not alter the meaning to be "to do
x", but rather "to use x for this or that" (where "this or that" could
represent, say, motion or intent). The suffix itself is useless unless it
is also combined with an adverb or a preposition (I am not sure exactly
what his idea is, and perhaps he does not even know himself) describing in
what way x is motioned or intending.

I am not at all sure if this is logical or possible, nor if I have got the
idea right. Further thoughts are welcome, all the same.

  Fredrik

Reply