Re: inalienable possession

Charles wrote :

> I have found it impossible to merge "transitive adverbs" with
> "adjective participles" because I need them both after all.
> Except for nouns, which have zero "valency", everything else
> is verb-like; adjective/statives take 1 argument noun,
> transitive verbs 2, transitive adverbs (prepositions) 2 as well.
>
> I prefer breaking di-transitive verbs into verb + adverb.
> It never seems right to me to have random unclassed "particles"
> floating around doing magical arbitrary things.
>
>
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 grind cereal into flour :
me grind cereal which=make flour.
the cereal is ground by me into flour :
cereal be-ground(-by) me which=make cereal.
the cereal [ground into flour] :
cereal [who=be-ground which=make flour].
the flour made by grinding cereal :
flour [who=be-made(-by) that=grind].
the flour [that I make by grinding cereal] :
flour [who me make whom which=be-made(-by) that=grind cereal]
*whom* allows a flexible structure in connected sentences.

Mathias




-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=18742