Re: THEORY: Deriving adjectives from nouns

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 05/06/99 19:26:06  , Charles a =E9crit :

> > 50 roles
>  > or so are most frequently used. complexity is not messy otherwise it=20
> wouldn't
>  > work.
> =20
>  My issue is whether to grammaticalize them or lay them out flat ...
this is the crux indeed : all (lojban), a few (english) or none (indonesian)=20
;-)

>  The concept of "having" or "generalized possession" is in English
>  "'s" and "of" and other genitive constructions; this is convenient,
>  but sometimes we get lost taking such short-cuts.
>
pardon me jeune homme, i have to say french linguists consider "genitive" as=20
the attributive form of a substantive, not as "having" or anything else fuzz=
y=20
like that. would you hint they are wrong ? :-)
 =20
>  > i'm confident that very trivial experiences like "eating" or "wending m=
y=20
> way"
>  > or "i've seen that somewhere already" are fundamental roles rather than=20
> lofty
>  > concepts like "agent" or "subject".
> =20
>  Me eat now. Actively, and not by your Tunus.
> =20
it's a question of belief, i grant you. my own belief (my own feeling) is=20
that there are "role classes" that you can sort out by semantic fields. the=20
evidence for that are the substantives derived from verbs. role and aspect=20
are tightly related in words like "building", "food", "start", "product",=20
"procedure", etc. try and classify all of them : you'll get as many roles as=20
i got. i'd like to add that tunuans eat human flesh mainly because there is=20
no belgian dioxin in it.

mathias