There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1a. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?    
    From: Dana Nutter

2a. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff    
    From: Eldin Raigmore
2b. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff    
    From: ROGER MILLS


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
    Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    Date: Sat Aug 9, 2008 5:48 pm ((PDT))

> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henrik
Theiling

> Does anyone have an affix in their conlang that corresponds
more or
> less directly to the English prefix 'out-' as in transitive
verbs as
> 'outperform', 'outsell', etc.?

Thoush not really an affix as such, Sasxsek has the root "iob"
meaning "to exceed" that can be used to form compounds like
those you mention.


> It would be a nice feature if a language had this a the only
way to
> form comparisons, especially languages where advectives are
verbs.  So
> you would say ,Jim outtalls John'.  

Yes that's a good way to handle it.


Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
    Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    Date: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:56 am ((PDT))

BTW I once read a scholarly book by a true professional linguist on the ease of 
forming new words of one class from words of another class.  I forget the title 
of the book and the name of the book's author (though I still have it -- 
somewhere -- ...)

However, I remember it said (among other things) that in most languages 
(though I recall only the English examples) it was particularly easy to make a 
verb from another word-class, especially from a noun.  (example: "to pipe 
someone aboard". "Pipe" was a noun; it can however be used as a verb, 
whether transitive or intransitive, with no morphology having been done on it 
at all -- a kind of "zero-derivation".)

I can quote two other writers on the subject, however;
"Verbing weirds language." (Calvin & Hobbes).

Note that the noun "verb" becomes (via "zero-derivation") the verb "verb" 
which is morphologically altered to the action-nominal "verbing".  Note that 
the 
adjective "weird" is zero-derived into the verb "weird".

Also note that originally -- back in the mists of English etymology -- "weird" 
was a noun.  But in more modern English it has become an adjective.


Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
    Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    Date: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:22 pm ((PDT))

Eldin Raigmore wrote:
>
>BTW I once read a scholarly book by a true professional linguist on the 
>ease of
>forming new words of one class from words of another class.  I forget the 
>title
>of the book and the name of the book's author (though I still have it --
>somewhere -- ...)

Even after almost 20 years in this house, I still have boxes of books in 
storage. Aargh.
>
>However, I remember it said (among other things) that in most languages...

I'd question that "most"!!

>...(though I recall only the English examples) it was particularly easy to 
>make a
>verb from another word-class, especially from a noun.  (example: "to pipe
>someone aboard". "Pipe" was a noun; it can however be used as a verb,
>whether transitive or intransitive, with no morphology having been done on 
>it
>at all -- a kind of "zero-derivation".)

This seems to be a peculiar ability of English, and I think it can be a 
pretty random process. There are of course cases like (vb.) projéct, (n.) 
próject, and genuine cases of zero-derivation like love (n or vb.).  Your 
pipe example, of course, refers to the little whistle-thingy used in the 
Navy (I think Brits can use it for bagpiping too) so is a highly specific 
case.

But yes, English can do this easily. Note also "welcome" as interjection, 
noun, verb or adjective.

William Safire, in his NYT column, likes to point out horrors like 
"surveillance : to surveille" or "liaison : to liase", not quite in the same 
category but close. Also, purists dislike "fínance" replacing the old 
distinction finánce : fínance (not sure which is the verb/noun, though it 
was drilled into me once upon a time :-(( ).

Indonesian can have zero-derivation in colloquial speech-- surat can mean 
'to write' or 'a letter', cinta 'love' can be noun or verb; but correctly, 
when used as verbs there ought to be a verbal prefix...  I really suspect 
not many languages can do this as readily as English does. (German/Dutch and 
Romance lgs. come to mind).

Sort of OT, but relevant to the question about Basque verbs-- IIRC the verbs 
that have their own synthetic conjugation (i.e. without the usual 
person+tense aux.) are a small and closed class, I think mostly 
intransitive. There's another productive (I think) class formed from NOUN + 
'to do/make' (egin?); one that has stuck in my mind is 'to sneeze' (sneeze + 
egin? + aux). (My Basque grammar is one of the books in storage.......)


Messages in this topic (3)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to