On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Edgard Bikelis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> "Deed" would just be nomen patientis of "do", wouldn't it? The thing
> >> that is done is the object of "do". Or am I misunderstanding?
> >
> >
> > Hm, in this case they may be the same, deed and the thing done. Maybe I
> am
> > overcomplicating, but lets say 'I've made a table'. I'm the doer, the
> table
> > is the thing done (nomen patientis), and 'making' is the deed.
>
> Yes, but the verb there is "make".  You gave "deed" as an example, and
> it can only be a nomen patientis of "do".   Beware of use/mention
> distinctions! :)


yep, bad example :$


> In general, you may describe the nomen actionis as
> the deed being done, but in the case of the word "deed" itself, it
> doesn't apply.  The nomen actionis would be "the doing".


For my non-native eyes you all have just one form, 'doing', and squeeze
everything you possibly can into it ; ). You are obviously right, but that
doesn't make me completely wrong ; ).

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deed]
1 *:* something that is done <evil *deed**s*>
2 *:* a usually illustrious act or action *:*
feat<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feat>,
exploit <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit> <a hero's daring
*deed**s*>
-> 3 *:* the act of performing *:*
action<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/action> <righteous
in word and in *deed*>


> Participles aren't inherently nomen agentis.  They can be active or
> passive, for one thing, and for another, they aren't necessarily
> nouns; in English they certainly aren't.


I feel that I should not, because word categories are thorny, but even so I
ask: what is that can use an article, and that still be not a noun? 'the
doing''


>   You have the "present "
> (active) participle, which has the same form as the gerund, which is
> the nomen actionis; and you have the "past" (passive) participle,
> which is usually an adjective but can, like many adjectives, also act
> as the noun described thereby: the nomen patientis.  But the nomen
> agentis is not a participle; it's the "-er" form.


I said 'X is Y', and you took care of saying "X is not inherently Y, and
also Y is not X' ; ). The first point is that I was thinking just
semantically, and I can't find semantic difference between an nomen agentis
and an active or middle participle with habitual aspect. Think of "he is a
quitter". The second is that I was not thinking about passive participles,
and I should have told so. It's quite hard to have it being a nomen agentis
; ).

The rest are particulars. Nomina agentis sometimes behave just like active
participles in vedic (taking accusative objects instead of genitives), and
so not so in english. That's just fine.

Edgard.

>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>