2011/9/27 Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 16:50, Koppa Dasao <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Oh, don't worry about the exact word in English. This is just a
>> feature in Delang. In Delang it much easier to make a verb from a
>> noun. As such most nouns in the dictionary already has an accompanying
>> verb, or a verb can easily be inferred by grammatical rules.
> The question is, can the meaning of the verb be inferred from that of
> the noun? :) I don't think it's always obvious what the "obvious"
> related verb is for a given noun. And also, even if a specific
> derivation meaning - say, "to act in the manner of a NOUN" - were used
> universally, I don't think it's obvious what would always produce the
> most useful verb.

Yet, this is the way verbs are created in Delang. I'll agree that it
wouldn't always translate well, as curmudgeon clearly shows, but it
does work within the language. Although a possibly bad example would
be the nouns language, лањ (lang), and speech, лање (lange), where the
accompanying verb for both nouns are лањі (langi), to speak.

> Also, can nouns be easily made from verbs?

No. Reversing the rules are more difficult, but it can be done.

> Or are nouns basic and
> verbs usually derived?

I would say neither. In the case of 'shirk'. The verb абі (abi) was
the "basic", while the noun абе (abe) was derived from it by reversing
the rules.

Note that not all words ending in i are verbs, and that not all verbs
ends in i or y. There are some cases where the noun and verb are
identical. The rules for creating verbs from nouns are not absolute.

Koppa Dasao
Гłо ƕамас інтер Мор δегај ƕамас ін моłі не ƒłемітеłі, мітеłі.
Gro hamaz intex Mox degaj hamaz in mori ne fremiteri, miteri.
May they in Death receive the peace they didn't get in dying.
Sent with GMail