A forum for topics that don't fit elsewhere. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. Forum rules still apply.
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 3:56 pm
Seems kinda like the subject->object promotion suffix I proposed earlier.
Not necessarily. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Example:
The rumour spread quickly. (intransitive)
You have to spread the butter evenly. (transitive)
I don't see how a subject -> object suffix would do the same thing.
Edit: I understand now, we can do either. If there is any difference, please tell me.
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 4:47 pm
An intransitive-to-transitive suffix could also add an object and preserve a subject, eg "I eat" vs "I eat cheese".
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:16 pm
Maybe we should just do that kind of promotion by including an object, and use a suffix for the other kind of promotion.
So you're saying we could use both? Could you give some examples too? It's okay if they're redundant to some degree, that's normal for any language.
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:16 pm
Maybe we should just do that kind of promotion by including an object, and use a suffix for the other kind of promotion.
So you're saying we could use both?
Yeah.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 28th, 2020, 5:19 pm
Could you give some examples too? It's okay if they're redundant to some degree, that's normal for any language.
In English or in the language? AFAIK we haven't made any promotion suffixes yet.
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:51 pm
"BokaBB sinks the boat"
Sorry for non-constructive comments, but WHAT?????????????
BokaBB had very good reasons for sinking the boat.
Hunting wrote: November 28th, 2020, 9:54 pm
p. s. what is this all about? How to learn?
What's what all about?
What are some resources on conlang grammar?
I feel that I's becoming another kind of BokaBB, the one he likes to be in the OCA board, tell people "do this, do that, please search, we must discover" blah blah blah and not doing anything himself.
fluffykitty wrote: November 28th, 2020, 7:51 pm
"I eat", "I eat food", "The boat sinks", "BokaBB sinks the boat".
So in the first pair, we simply don't put the object (food), and in the former of the second pair, we do boat + object -> subject suffix, and in the latter sink + intransitive -> transitive suffix.
fluffykitty wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:14 pm
The first element of the second pair would probably use the base form of the verb with no special affixes.
Well does the subject of the first element of the second pair have a object -> subject suffix?
Pretty sure I never said anything about an object-to subject-suffix other than the usual passive marker. The subject-to-object suffix would be used on the verb for cases like "you sink the boat".
fluffykitty wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:30 pm
Pretty sure I never said anything about an object-to subject-suffix other than the usual passive marker. The subject-to-object suffix would be used on the verb for cases like "you sink the boat".
Ok then, instead of an intransitive -> transitive suffix there could be an transitive -> intransitive suffix? Transitive could be the default form of the verb.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:40 pm
Ok then, instead of an intransitive -> transitive suffix there could be an transitive -> intransitive suffix?
We have a passive suffix, and we could also add a middle suffix.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:40 pm
Transitive could be the default form of the verb.
That might be interesting, but we'd probably need a middle voice affix for some verbs to work with that.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:40 pm
Ok then, instead of an intransitive -> transitive suffix there could be an transitive -> intransitive suffix?
We have a passive suffix, and we could also add a middle suffix.
How would the middle suffix serve a different purpose? Also intransitive and passive aren't the same thing (you know that of course): <The rumour was spread.> and <The rumour spread.>
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: January 25th, 2005, 2:47 pm
Ok then, instead of an intransitive -> transitive suffix there could be an transitive -> intransitive suffix?
We have a passive suffix, and we could also add a middle suffix.
How would the middle suffix serve a different purpose? Also intransitive and passive aren't the same thing (you know that of course): <The rumour was spread.> and <The rumour spread.>
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm
How would the middle suffix serve a different purpose? Also intransitive and passive aren't the same thing (you know that of course): <The rumour was spread.> and <The rumour spread.>
fluffykitty wrote: November 29th, 2020, 3:51 pm
That might be interesting, but we'd probably need a middle voice affix for some verbs to work with that.
As you mentioned, "the rumor spread" is not the same thing as "the rumor was spread". To get that meaning, we'd need a middle voice suffix.
Ok you're right. The example Wikipedia sentence for middle voice is <The casserole cooked in the oven.> Is it kind of like passive done to oneself?
