Learn Na'vi > Advanced Grammar

Reflexive or causative in a participle

(1/10) > >>

Wllìm:
In this thread there was a discussion about whether we can have the reflexive or causative infix inside a participle.


--- Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 09, 2014, 01:51:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: Plumps on August 09, 2014, 01:08:23 pm ---Also, if you have ‹us› and ‹awn›, not only are aspect, tense, intent and mode not possible but the infixes of transitivity as well. ;)

--- End quote ---
How then would you say stuff like "the bathing animal" and such?

--- End quote ---
I couldn't find anything in Horen about this, it only says the following:
3.6.3.3. There are only two participle infixes. They do not combine with tense, aspect or mood infixes.
So it doesn't say that reflexive and causative are not to be combined with participles. :-\

So the question is: Can the reflexive and causative infixes occur in a participle?

Okay, the following is just my guess:

I think that it is quite logical to say
[*]ioang ay<äp><us>ur the animal that washes itself
[/list]
(I'd guess that ioang ay<äp><awn>ur is not allowed, namely, I consider y<äp>ur to wash yourself to be an intransitive verb like any other, and with intransitive verbs <awn> does not make sense.)

Also,
[*]ioang ay<eyk><us>ur the animal that causes to wash
[*]ioang ay<eyk><awn>ur the animal that is caused to wash
[/list]

Tìtstewan:
No. This would make less than no sense.

<us> Active Participle. This turns a verb into an attributive adjective in the form "The Verbing noun...".
Example: H<us>ahaw-a nantang = A sleeping Viperwolf.

<awn> Passive Participle. This turns a verb into an attributive adjective in the form "The Verbed noun...".
Example: Palulukan a-t<awn>aron lehrrap ke lu = A hunted thanator is not dangerous.

....and this:

--- Quote from: http://wiki.learnnavi.org/Canon/2010/March-June#Participial_Infixes ---Quoted by wm.annis, March 13, 2010 (on the forum).'

    Aylì’u apawnlltxe nìltsan!

    -us- and -awn- are parallel infixes--active and passive participles respectively.

    ioang apuslltxe
    lì'fya apawnlltxe
--- End quote ---

Tirea Aean:
well..we already know we can say this "a bathing animal" as

ioang a yäpur
animal which self-washes

which would actually even be shorter to say than

*ioang ayäpusur

So  I have to wonder if *a-<äp><us> / <äp><us>-a is not redundant as we can translate the meaning not the words in a shorter way.

same goes for <eyk><us>, I think.

Wllìm:

--- Quote from: Tirea Aean on August 09, 2014, 02:44:52 pm ---So  I have to wonder if *a-<äp><us> / <äp><us>-a is not redundant as we can translate the meaning not the words in a shorter way.

--- End quote ---

True, but then we can say as well that all participles are redundant:
ioang a yur / ioang ayusur
animal that washes / washing animal

ioang a yur is shorter... ???

Tìtstewan:
"A bathing animal" would be just ioang ayusur
That <äp> version would be  "a self-bathing animal"

"A washed animal" - ioang ayawnur
vs.
"A self-washed animal" - *ioang ayäpawnur
 ???

*Ioang ayeykusur - "a causing to wash animal"
*Ioang ayeykawnur - " a caused to wash animal"
 ???

The only word which could work are those X säpi words:
lew-säpusia ioang - A (self-)covering animal
lew-säpawnia ioang - A (self-)covered animal

But it feels weird for me...otherwise, question for Pawl

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version