LC-01 genitive noun  phrase s

Oops!   I didn't mean to spark serious discussion about this.   I just wanted 
to make sure that everyone knew it was *not* me just saying "this is my 
dialect so it must be right"--I didn't even come up with the idea.

However, looking at this, one could see how it could be useful to conlanging. 
  After all, has anyone created a system that, for certain things, just 
doesn't work comfortably?   Say just like this: An agentive suffix which runs into 
trouble when multiple words from multiple categories are all unified into one 
action?

Responding to several:

Andreas wrote:

<<> Does the form "up-picker" occur? It seems the second most natural 
alternative
> to me ...>>
You know what does occur: on-looker.   Never "looker on" or "looker onner" or 
"look onner".

<<BTW, David, do you find "passers-by" equally odd?>>

Not at all, but this is, by now, a lexicalized form, I believe.   I'd say 
that *passer byers would be ungrammatical, in all dialects.   (Q: Did the need 
for this word come about because French has a single word for it, "quidam"?)

Muke wrote:

<<Practice:

        1.  throw away + -er = ________
       2.  blow up + -er    = ________
       3.  cast aside + -er = ________>>

The perfect test.   I can get "thrower awayer" not *throw awayer, "blower 
upper" not *blow upper, and I can't do anything "cast aside".   I'd produce 
"caster asider", but I'd be decidedly unhappy with it.

I think that, considering all the data, the truly odd thing would be to come 
across a speaker that has one and only one form that they could comfortably 
use with everything.   Maybe?

-David

Reply