Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 15/09/99 16:12:10 , Paul a =E9crit :
> =20
> Apart from clarifying the meaning of "ga" for me, that's just restating=20
the=20
> same
> misaprehension. =20
ga has plenty to say of its own, but in this case
i feel it like a tag to switch from a "topic/comment" structure
into "whole/attribute" structure :
jan z'n kop
john's head
The legal forms of both now only contain "- da" because you'
> ve
> added "- no" to one of them. If you lose the "- no", the "- da" has to g=
o=20
> with
> it. At no point does "iku" become a noun, nor does "koyotsu" ever become =
a
> verb.
yes.
the fact that an entity has a specific comportement
does not make it a comportement itself.
the fact that a comportement is found with a specific
entity does not make it such entity either.
as i wrote earlier, you can think of coyote as a specific
"comportement" of the entity of "going". no problem.
but specific it is.
To consider them both as equivalent PoS's, they surely need to both=20
> take
> _exactly_ the same syntactic modification which causes _exactly_ the same
> semantic change. (The definition of exact may vary from language to=20
> language,
> but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't vary very much!)
> =20
i agree too.
but i feel like there are concepts "rooting" from
"Verb" (comportement) towards "Noun" (entity)
and i'd call them verbs and other concepts doing
conversely from Noun to Verb so i'd call them "nouns".
"adjectives" are a comportement taken as an attributive
relation (shiny sun) while "verbs" are comportement in active relation
(the sun shines).
it's a question of "trend" or "direction" in my eyes
(maybe because that's how i was told in philo classes).
i don't think we can change anything to that.
take an noun of action (shine) of result (song) or of agent (singer)
to express a process doesn't change that fact i think (?)
> ;) Suffice to say, I think I'm on your side on this one.
> =20
ah ? too bad.
> =20
> ---
> Pb
> =20
> =20
mathias