En réponse à stoiberh@INODE.AT :
>Beginners have most of the energy and most of all the fresh and
>innocent ideas but also very little experience, of course. I'd like
>to become an experienced beginner which is probably much the same as
>a grown-up child. *ggg*
LOL. I like to consider myself to be such a grown-up child, though most
often I'm more child than grown-up ;))) .
>Inner inflection is elegant to me. And the semitic approach is the
>very most innermost inflection that I can imagine! :-)))
Well, if you check my Moten, you will see that with infixes you can also do
very inner inflection (especially when those infixes have lots of
phonological effects with the root ;))) ).
>Causative: "the one who makes (causes to be) ready"
>Patientive: "the one who is ready"
>Completive: "that which somebody is ready for"
>Intransitive gerund: "the being ready"
>Active transitive gerund: "the making ready"
>Passive transitive gerund: "the being made ready"
My Itakian does that, although it doesn't have that many roles to
nominalise :)) .
>Maybe my terminology is against linguistic common sense. ;-)
Which can be a goal for itself too ;))) .
>Whew! I have the idea clearly in my head but I have a hard time
>describing it succinctly. :-))
But I do understand what you mean :) . It's basically how ergative
languages are sometimes described by people who cannot think around their
accusative background :)) .
>Agentive.... *processing*.... *musing*.... *thinking*...
>*considering*... *done*... yes, let's call it agentive! :-)))
Nice! :)
>The previous paragraph already reveals an odd peculiarity of my
>verbal roots. They are passive for action verbs - since they
>describe the change that happens to the patient. And they are
>active for state verbs where they in fact describe what the patient
>"does" or rather which state or change of state he experiences.
As I said, it's exactly like that that verbs are described in ergative
languages by people who want to apply accusative logic to them :)) . And
indeed you system is not so much different from an ergative system :) .
>Yes, it is the possessee. That was a typical German mistake! "Besitz"
>for possessee and "Besitz" for possession. Easily confused in English.
>;-)
Same problem in French where "possession" can refer to the action or the
possessed thing. Luckily in French we can nominalise past participles more
easily than in English, so we also have "possédé" to refer only to the
possessee.
>Right now as you begin to show me how strange the approach is, I
>happen to like it more and more. *hehehe*
LOL. A disciple of the Maggelish Way? ;))))
>Hehehe, you are a good observer! German word order played its tricks
>on me... most definitely the sentence should be:
>
>"mahol epason enitom jantik"
As I thought. The language is SOV, which fits well with modifiers
preceeding modifiees :)) .
>Well, now that's obviously a twisted conlang. Your signature
>cleary says that accordingly I have a straight mind. Well, hm,
>let's see...
>I just can't find this mysterious straight mind you are
>speaking of!!! *LOL*
LOL. The sig. is to take with a triple (or even quadruple) meaning. After
all, I'm not much straight myself ;))) .
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.