GROUPLANG: noun and verb roots
|From:||Pablo Flores <fflores@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 14, 1998, 22:31|
Herman Miller wrote:
>I think I can accept the interchangeability of noun and verb roots if we
>can come up with a good scheme for relating the meanings of the various
>forms consistently. I don't want to end up with Esperanto where you have to
>memorize that you "marteli" [hammer] with a "martelo" rather than a
>"martelilo", or English where "bite" can be either the act of biting or the
>impression left by the teeth.
>"Bite" might work well as an action root, with the result of the action
>expressed by adding a derivational affix. But other words, such as
>"photograph", may be more convenient as concrete nouns, with "the act of
>taking a photograph" expressed by derivation. In English, both "bite" and
>"photograph" can be used interchangeably as nouns or verbs, but the
>relation between the noun and verb meanings is incompatible.
With the new cases we've added (suggested by Mathias in earlier posts)
there shouldn't be such confusions, which were the primary motive for
the unending discussions we had :-)
If I understood well:
agent-I predicate-hammer "I hammer" (I use a hammer)
absolutive-rock predicate-hammer "The rock hammers" (The rock is [used as] a hammer)
undergoer-hammer predicate-fall "The hammer falls"
You'll have to ask Mathias whether this
caus-pred-hammer undergoer-I pred-bother
1. "It bothers me to hammer", OR
2. "The hammering bothers me" (somebody is making noise with a hammer
and that bothers me).
I think it's 2. "It bothers me to hammer" should be more like
ag-I pred-hammer [ki], caus-ki pat-I pred-bother
where ki is a relative pronoun:
"That I hammer, [THAT] bothers me!"
What do you say, Mathias? Have I studied my lessons? :)