Because of you.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Frommer has said there will be no more infixes, so don't count on it.  However as I pointed out a few posts ago, it is still possible to say without having to come up with new convoluted infixes.  As it is, äpeyk is confusing enough, *eykäp would just make it worse.

I think I understand now where our difference in understanding is. Irayo

But <eykäp> wouldn't really be a new infix-- just a different use of existing infixes.

[Kamean]

But <eykäp> wouldn't really be a new infix-- just a different use of existing infixes.

Yes, this is infix interweaving.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

actually the rule says that if both those infixes come together they must be äpeyk. therefore "eykäp" will be sort of a new infix. if we do that we will actually break the first rule and make a new one that says the order is affected by the meaning you want.

[Carborundum]

I'm pretty sure (can't find the quote right now) that Dr. Frommer said there will be neither new infixes nor new combinations of existing infixes.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

that's too bad because this combination could make things a lot easier.

[omängum fra'uti]

It's not that common a thing to say (But then again neither is äpeyk) and it IS possible to say fairly easily still.  Adding a new combined infix like that would just cause more confusion I suspect.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

perhaps just for beginners but I see no problem here. in <äpeyk> the person is doing something to himself and therefore the "äp" comes first. in *<eykäp> the point is that he causes someone to do something and therefore "eyk" comes first.

[Kamean]

perhaps just for beginners but I see no problem here. in <äpeyk> the person is doing something to himself and therefore the "äp" comes first. in *<eykäp> the point is that he causes someone to do something and therefore "eyk" comes first.

Yes.I think the same way.

[omängum fra'uti]

Now go back and read how many times in this thread I had to explain what äpeyk means.

Either way, Frommer said no new infixes, so it's not likely to happen.

[Tswusayona Tsamsiyu]

hey if we're talking about <äpeyk> I have another question.
<äpeyk> means "to cause oneself to do something". but how would one express "to cause oneself to do something to oneself".
for instance: tspäpeykang means "to make yourself kill someone". but how would you say "to make yourself suicide (kill yourself)".
another <äp> is not possible. so what would one do in such a case? does he have to use fkol fkot?

[Ataeghane]

Rather sno or just oe, nga or po.