Re: inalienable possession
|Date:||Sunday, November 22, 1998, 17:46|
Mathias M. Lassailly wrote:
> Charles wrote :
> > I have found it impossible to merge "transitive adverbs" with
> > "adjective participles" because I need them both after all.
> > I prefer breaking di-transitive verbs into verb + adverb.
> You could also merge verbs-adverbs-participles provided you procure the 4 synt.
> deictic tags *which* (latter clause), *who* (latter noun), *whom* (latter
> noun) and *that* (next clause) :
I put the tags onto roots as endings; verbs, prepositions
(transitive adverbs), and participles (fancy adjectives)
have active and passive forms, for 6 tag-endings.
> I grind cereal into flour :
> me grind cereal which=make flour.
noun1 verb-active noun2 ADVERB-ACTIVE noun3
so "fac = make" + "-ie" = "facie".
> the cereal is ground by me into flour :
> cereal be-ground(-by) me which=make cereal.
This would be the same, or could go serial-verb:
noun verb-passive noun VERB-ACTIVE noun
then "fac" + "-i = active verb" = "faci".
> the cereal [ground into flour] :
> cereal [who=be-ground which=make flour].
noun1 adjective-passive adverb-active noun2
um, "hored = barley" "muler = grind" "farin = flour"
"horedo mulerua facie farino"
> the flour made by grinding cereal :
> flour [who=be-made(-by) that=grind].
"farino facua mulerie horedo"
I'm not so sure this is working!
> the flour [that I make by grinding cereal] :
> flour [who me make whom which=be-made(-by) that=grind cereal]
"farino facu meso muleri horedo"
"-u = verb passive"
I cheated to avoid the relative clause.
> *whom* allows a flexible structure in connected sentences.
I must now re-examine the whole relative clause issue.