Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: 'true' nature of nouns vs. 'illusionary' nature

From:Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>
Date:Wednesday, April 21, 2004, 11:30
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>

> Eh? Under what definition of polysynthesis is there any doubt that > Georgian verbs are polysynthetic? I mean, verbs inflect for the > person and number of the subject, direct object, indirect object, for > tense, various kinds of aspect, mood, a number of valence properties, > "version", etc.
I should've said that Georgian is polysynthetic, but not incorporating. Or not as polysynthetic as Inuktitut or Cherokee. I read something about different types of polysynthesis, that some languages have "optional polysynthesis" (French might fall in this category). German also has a level of incorporation, but not polypersonalism.
> It's not, actually. It's a split-S system, as it has two classes of > intransitive verbs, one mostly for unaccusatives that patterns like > the notional direct object of first conjugation transitive verbs, and > one for unergatives that patterns like the notional subject of 1st > conjugation transitives. The mixing you're thinking about concerns > the behavior of precisely these transitives in the present series. > (This is one area of the language I am currently researching.)
That's what's called 'version' right? I'm reading the online grammar at and it's confusing me. Kartvelian languages just might have the most complicated verb grammar. But I've read Ket has a scary verb system too. Sergei Starostin has a description of it in Russian at, but you need to install his font package to view the phonetic symbols.