Re: feature ?
|Date:||Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 2:03|
i havent noticed the -ee ending in this context yet.
actually languages often offer such affixes, which could be used on
every term. just the habits force people to avoid them intuitively just
because its not common to connect a word like e.g. television with
the affix e.g. -less. so "im television-less" is a very efficient &
anyway -ee refers to the patient-personification only.
"patient-form" means not only a specific person but a general "reception"
of an action.
| agent-form patient-form
normal action: | influence (?)
personification of the action: | infuence-or influenc-ee
yesterday someone said to me: "i have a consultation now".
so i asked :"do you consultate or are you consultated ?"
its not clear.
he could have answered: "i am the consultator" or perhaps "i am the cosultatee"
the latter however sounds indeed abit unusual :-)
AJ> Claudio wrote:
>>well its up to you.
>>i just think for me that it is important when we look abit further
>>when it comes to the need to express the patient-form in one word,
>>and thats what people are naturally thriving for, because
>>the human mind can remember single terms much better than phrases,
>>than its important to offer some semantic marker for it.
>>"a person who is influencing" we can abbreviate it with a
>>person-marker: -or. -> an influenc-or (like
>>"a person who is beeing influenced" is a really lentghy and
>>ineffective way to express it.
>>now lets say we would create a marker for making the incluence
>>patient-side with the affix: "I" beeing influenced:=influence-I
>>now attaching the person marker -or: influence-i-or
>>voila ! "the person who is beeing influenced"
>>isnt that usefull ?
AJ> Isn't what you're describing already done by the ending -ee? As in
AJ> "employee", "huntee", "controlee" etc. I think even ?"influencee" may
AJ> already exist (if not, I just coined it and demand $.5 for each use of it!
AJ> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.