I've changed the subject line, as this part of the thread is clearly not 
about kicking the infinitive habit. Rather, it is about interesting and 
different uses of infinitives    :)

H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:40:02AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>But the gerundive a NP! This is a bit hard for us who have been
>>brought up with the Latin gerundive which is a verbal _adjective_. Are
>>you sure you're using the best terminology.
>  
> Maybe not. In which case, I'd like to be enlightened as to what is
> better terminology to describe what TF is doing. :-)
> 
> Maybe "participle" is a better term for the "infinitive"? Or maybe not.

Having looked more carefully at your examples, and looking at the TF 
grammar http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara, I think they are indeed 
infinitives - but TF's way of handling relative clauses is certainly 
unusual! But why not?  :)

Just to recap your examples from your previous mail:
{quote}
tara' kei  uenai ibuneis           ka'aman      ia.
(she  ORG) want  (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
She wants to eat the mushroom.
.....

huu sa  tapa tun   na  ibuneis      arapan      bata.
1sp CVY go   slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
{/quote}

I have no problem with these. The words concerned are clearly nouns as 
they have the noun case postclitics; but they also have verbal functions 
in that they have their own verb arguments. that is, they are verbal 
nouns - i.e. infinitives.

But:
{quote}
Notably, the infinitive clause is identical in form and construction to
a relative clause modifying a noun:
baan      ikaren    muras kuinin   sei  tanap buta' fei  imi tsi.
(old_lady (CVY:shoe black own:RCP) CVY) dwell hut   that in  COMPL
The old lady who owns the black shoes lives in that hut.
{/quote}

Well, yes, this is TF's infinitive. It is AFAIK a quite unique way of 
handling relative clauses - as I said, I familiar with the idea of using 
a participle clause to express this idea (The old lady, the [one] owning 
the shoes, lives in that hut), but you haven't use a participle. It's 
certainly an interesting  way of dealing with things  :)

> And perhaps I should just call the "gerundive" a plain ole gerund,
> because that's really what it is, except that the nouns that modify it
> appear in secondary forms. 

Yes, I think it would be better called just the plain ole gerund  :)

They are definitely verbal nouns, as far as I can see, so I definitely 
think 'gerund' would be a better term.

([snip]
> NP's in embedded/subordinate clauses. The arguments to a gerundive, or a
> gerund, are marked using the latter.) Thus, it is possible to speak of a
> gerundive phrase (or gerund phrase?) comprising of the gerund itself
> plus its arguments, which are overtly distinct from the other NP's in
> the main clause. What is the best terminology to describe this?

gerund phrase, or maybe 'gerundial phrase'?

> 
> 
>>>The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is
>>>the same as the subject NP of the main clause. 
>>
>>Sort of like we find in certain constructions in ancient Greek  :)
>  
> Article + infinitive?

No - I was thinking of clauses expressed with acc+infinitive, like they 
have in Latin. If the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of 
the main verb, Latin a reflexive pronoun, but Greek simply used the 
infin. with no 'accusative subject'.
Cf. English:
I want us to go.
But
I want to go (Not: *I want me to go)

>>>The gerundive is used when the action is independent of the subject
>>>NP of the main clause.
>>
>>OK - but why isn't it called a gerund?
>  
> Maybe it should be? :-) The main thing, I think, is that TF gerunds can
> take NP arguments, 

So could Latin gerunds and so do English gerunds (tho not subject 
arguments, but both can take all other verbal arguments).

[snip]
> So maybe I should just call it a gerund.

Yes, I think so.

>>>More examples of the infinitive:
>>>	huu sa  tapa tun   na  ibuneis      arapan      bata.
>>>	1sp CVY go   slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
>>>	I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
>>
>>Ah! An infinitive to show purpose. Not uncommon - but there are
>>languages with infinitives that do not allow them to be used this way.
> 
> 
> Interesting. There is actually another way to indicate purpose in TF,
> using the postpositional _utu_ ("for the purpose of"):
> 
> 	huu sa  tapa tun   na  ibuneis       arapan   utu  bata.
> 	1sp CVY go   slope RCP (CVY:mushroom pick:RCP for) COMPL
> 	I go to the slope for the purpose of picking mushrooms.
> 
> One could argue that the so-called "infinitive" in the previous example
> is really just an abbreviated form of this latter construction, with
> _utu_ elided.

I guess one could. In English dialect, forms like "I go to the slope of 
the hill [all] for to pick mushrooms" were still around in the early 
20th cent - but probably died out now   :=(

[snip]
> 
>>BTW some prescriptive grammars will tell you that (b) is
>>'ungrammatical' and that you must use (c). But the ancient authors
>>themselves were not aware of that rule   ;)
>  
> Hehe... makes one wonder where the prescriptivists got that 'rule' from.
> :-)

They have a habit of turning _tendencies_ into fixed 'rules' - even if 
it means saying things like "Caesar's Latin is not as good as Cicero's" 
- crazy  ;)

-- 
Ray
==================================
[log in to unmask]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB}