Re: Two different opposites (again)

Roger Mills wrote at 2004-05-13 00:50:26 (-0400)
 > Henrik Theiling wrote:
 > >
 > > Carsten Becker <post@...> writes:
 > > >  > There is also the "inverse" relation:
 > > >  >
 > > >  > to buy <--> to sell
 > > >  >
 > > >  > to teach <--> to learn (the same word, "apprendre", can be
 > > >  > used in French, although there is also "enseigner" fo "to
 > > >  > teach") etc.
 > > >
 > > > Cool, that adds another dimension ...
 > >
 > > The two pairs are still different: 'teach' is the causative of
 > > 'learn'.  But 'sell' is not the causative of 'buy', but more a
 > > pair like 'give' - 'take'.  It's more balanced in who causes
 > > what.
 > >
 > In some Indonesian and/or Philippine languages (I forget which) buy
 > and sell use the same base.  Another common relation: borrow --
 > lend, as Indo.  /pinjam/ meminjam 'borrow from', meminjami
 > ~meminjamkan 'lend out, loan'.
 >

Tagalog, for one.  "buy" and "sell" are formed by applying different
agentive voice affixes to the root _bili_ - _bumilí_ "buy", _magbilí_
"sell".  This means that other voices don't make the distinction -
_bilhín_ "be bought/be sold".  It's a neat system, but apparently
unique in Tagalog (there are other roots which can take both _-um-_
and _mag-_, but the contrast in meaning is different from the above).

(This information from here:
http://www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~himmelmann/tagalog_Curzon.pdf
Hopefully Tagalog speakers will correct me if I've inadvertantly said
anything misleading.)

Does anyone know any languages with a regular strategy for this kind
of thing?  I know German has _kaufen_/_verkaufen_, and
_mieten_/_vermieten_ for "rent" (which is a case where it's English that
makes no distinction, although we can say _let_ for "vermieten") but I
don't know how productive this is.

Reply