Re: Not applicatives, but...?
|From:||Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 21, 2008, 19:04|
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Douglas Koller <laokou@...> wrote:
> From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
> > (And also "versprechen", which can either be "mis-speak"
> > or "promise".)
> My dictionary says that in the meaning of the former, the verb is reflexive. Is this so?
> sich versprechen = make a slip of the tongue
> versprechen = promise
Yes, that's right.
And even for a reflexive "promise" meaning, there'll typically be an
indirect object argument that won't be there for the "mis-speak"
meaning, e.g. "Sie hat sich mir versprochen" = "She promised herself
to me" vs. "Sie hat sich versprochen" = "She mis-spoke".
> Making it a little easier to distinguish than just by context.
The nominalised forms are also different: "das Versprechen" = the
promise, "der Versprecher" = the act of mis-speaking. (Technically,
the homophonous form "das Versprechen" can also be the nominalised
infinitive, meaning "the act of mis-speaking/promising", but that form
won't be as frequent IMO as the two I listed.)
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>