Print

Print


"Resultative" is a word, but maybe not what you're looking for.

Thanks, but you are right; it is not. Does anybody else have any ideas?
Maybe I should start a new thread.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Daniel Demski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 1:51 AM, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> >On 08/29/2015 11:52 PM, William Wright wrote:
> >> How might one express the concept of something being possible (i.e.
> >> "it is
> >> possible") using only transitive verbs and transitive verb derivatives?
> >
> >As an affix[*]:
> >
> >1) Dog-AGENT bite-POSSIBLE man-OBJECT.
> >"is it possible that a dog can bite/bit a man?"
> >
> >2) Dog-AGENT-POSSIBLE bite man-OBJECT.
> >"is it possible that a DOG (as opposed to something else) is capable
> of/was the one biting a man?"
> >
> >3) Dog-AGENT bite man-OBJECT-POSSIBLE.
> >"is it possible that a MAN (as opposed to something else) can be
> bitten/was bitten by a dog?"
> >
> >Hm, maybe two affixes, one for capability and one for being guilty?
> >
>
> Maybe this is because the example is a question, but playing around with
> the placement of such an affix feels a lot like moving a topic marker
> around. I wonder what it would be like to have as many types of topic
> markers in a language as possible!
>



-- 
Sincerely,
         William S. Wright