Reflexive / Causative in combination with the infixes <us> and <awn>

[Tìtstewan]

Kaltxì ma frapo,

There was recently a discussion if one can combine reflexive <äp> and causative <eyk> with the active/passive participles.
As this is a quite difficult question, Pawl could only answer a part of it:

[...]
You ask some excellent questions! Most of them I want to think about for a bit longer, since the ramifications are important.

One preliminary judgment, though: <awn> can't be used with <äp>:

*Oel tse'a ioangit ayäpawnur. --That's not grammatical.

The reason is that <awn> is only used with transitive verbs, since it's only for transitive verbs that passive makes sense: We can have tsawne'a, yawnur, tspawnang, etc. but not *zawna'u, *hawnahaw, *kxawnem, etc.

But what <äp> does is turn a transitive verb into an intransitive one. We say, for example, Pol ngati tse'a. 'He sees you.'

But with the reflexive, it's Po tsäpe'a 'He sees himself,'  not *Pol tsäpe'a. This indicates that tsäpe'a is intransitive. it would be like having an intransitive verb "self-see," (which of course we do not have in English!) that cannot take an object: If such a verb existed, "John self-sees" would be OK, but "John self-sees Mary" would not be possible.

So this eliminates one cell in the matrix:

                 <äp>           <eyk>

<us>


<awn>      NO


I'll be thinking more about the other 3 cells. ;-)

I'll get back to you again as soon as I can.

So, a quarter of the question has been answered: combination of <awn> and <äp> is impossible

Update:
Reflexive / Causative in combination with the infixes <us> and <awn> - The 2nd

[Kemaweyan]

Tsaw eltur tìtxen si, irayo. Ke tsun fko sivar fìmekemlì'uvit awsiteng a fì'u lam muiä Lahea hapxìri tì'eyngä oe perey nìftxavang...

[Tìtstewan]

Srane. Slä lahea hemlì'uvit eltur tìtxen sayi! Oe new ivomum tsat, slä tìmweypey!

[Tirea Aean]

This makes a lot of sense.

But this also means that <äp><us> is not ruled out and may very well be possible. Same with the <eyk> combinations.

[Tìtstewan]

By the logic of his explanation, <eyk> and <awn> could be possible as <eyk> makes a verb transitive.
As for <äp> and <us>, I somehow feel it's possible, but lets wait what Pawl will say.

(hrh, funny discussion that everything should be send by the LEP xD)

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I wasn't aware that <awn> would only work with transitive verbs, but the explanation makes sense.

[Tirea Aean]

I wasn't aware that <awn> would only work with transitive verbs, but the explanation makes sense.

It only makes sense. Using it on an intransitive word would not make any sense. The whole point of <awn>'s existence has always been to turn a verb into an adjective which would modify a noun to say that the verb has been applied to the noun modified. Which would by definition mean that the verb has to be transitive, or such a noun the verb was applied to applied to could not be. This noun would be the direct object.

Oel yolom syuvet. Oel ke tse'a yawnoma syuvet.
I ate food. I don't see the eaten food.

tutan holahaw. Tutanìl tse'a *hawnahawa....
The man slept. The man sees the *slept...

How can we make a passive participle of this, given there is no direct object?
Here this <awn> is modifying a noun into one which has had the verb executed upon it.

All examples of <awn> we have ever seen, did you notice they were all transitive?

But <us> is interesting. We don't quite have the same problem with this one.

Tutanìl yerom syuvet. Oel tse'a yusoma tutanit.
The man is eating food. I see the eating man.

Zerup tompa. Oel tse'a zusupa tompati.
Rain is falling. I see the falling rain.

Because here, this looks to be modifying a noun into one which is in the process of doing the verb.



--
I patiently await the coming answers...

[Wllìm]

Great I guessed that part correctly
I'm very curious about the other forms...

* Wllìm modifies the Verb infix tool to reject <äp> + <awn>

[Blue Elf]

By the logic of his explanation, <eyk> and <awn> could be possible as <eyk> makes a verb transitive.
As for <äp> and <us>, I somehow feel it's possible, but lets wait what Pawl will say.

(hrh, funny discussion that everything should be send by the LEP xD)

But language IS NOT math and logic sometimes (or even often) doesn't work. Let's wait for final answer (whether logical or not ).

[Tirea Aean]

But language IS NOT math and logic sometimes (or even often) doesn't work. Let's wait for final answer (whether logical or not ).

Absolutely. Unexpected exceptions happen all the time in natural languages. But there does come a point where something is SO nonsensical, that it cannot possibly exist. Right? Still, I agree.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

The second sentence doesn't make grammatical sense:

Zerup tompa. Oel tse'a zusupa tompa.
Rain is falling. I see the falling rain.

Tse'a is a transitive verb, so Oel is properly marked as a agent. The root verb of zusup, zup is intransitive. But since zusup is now effectively an adjective (and takes an -a-), it simply modifies tompa, which should be marked as a patient, and thus be tompat(i)

[Tirea Aean]

The second sentence doesn't make grammatical sense:

Zerup tompa. Oel tse'a zusupa tompa.
Rain is falling. I see the falling rain.

Tse'a is a transitive verb, so Oel is properly marked as a agent. The root verb of zusup, zup is intransitive. But since zusup is now effectively an adjective (and takes an -a-), it simply modifies tompa, which should be marked as a patient, and thus be tompat(i)

Took the long route to say "forgot -t in that 2nd one" eh? Yeah, I dun messed up. *edited the previous post* +1 to you for correcting that error

[Wllìm]

But there does come a point where something is SO nonsensical, that it cannot possibly exist. Right?

HRH! Ever seen the Dutch spelling rules for making compound nouns?

Spoiler: Short summary of the rule

Use -en- when the first part of the compound has a plural on -en, else use -e-. Except when it also has a plural on something else (yes, there are words with two possible plurals...). And, except if there is only one of the item. And, except if there are possibly more of the item, but it is logically presumed that you only mean one of them (this is actually quite arbitrary). (There are some more exceptions like these.) Now on these exceptions there are several exceptions, for example "old" compounds that the spelling is fixed of, and stupid things like "if the first part is an animal and the compound is a plant, don't use -en-, even if the other rules would imply that". Oh wait, and there have been two spelling reforms already since I first learned the rule, which both changed the rules for this to "make it easier", so I'm not sure what exceptions are added and removed in the meantime... There also is an "un-official" spelling, which even uses different rules for this... Now the most stupid part: there is no difference in pronunciation between the two forms (except if you speak really carefully). It is purely a spelling issue.

I think almost all Dutch people wonder how such a nonsensical, complicated rule was invented... Almost nobody does it right anyway