Re: Not applicatives, but...?

In a message dated 3/20/2008 22:12:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
langs@QUANDARY.ORG writes:


> I am trying to infuse some rigor into my major conlang (the transitional
> version, "Mirexu", will be used in the upcoming relay).  I know what I
> want verbs to do: they take (what used to be?) adpositions, and use them
> as prefixes to derive other monotransitive senses of the verb, discarding
> the original object in favor of the formerly oblique participant.
>
> For example, "ti" to say (something); "duti" to speak (to someone);
> "treti" to discuss; "vunti" to speak for, to advocate.  (Wait - there
> it is, right in Latin, right?  Ad-vocate?)
>
> This does not appear to be an applicative process as such, as that
> terminology seems to require an increase in valency.  It's so similar to
> what German infinitives and some English gerunds do, not to mention the
> Latin I stumbled upon above.  It must have a name!  But I can't find it.
> Anybody know?
>
>

This seems a lot like the anti-passive/anti-middle voice that Rick Morneau
describes in his Lexical Semantics (as part of Latejami):
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html

It may even be the anti-anti-passive/anti-anti-middle voice of his earlier
Katanda:
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/Katanda/Katanda.html

stevo   </HTML>