>From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote: >=20 > Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 22/06/99 02:08:04 , Charles a =E9crit : >=20 > > I pay the-cashier to-buy the-book. > i pay man-cash (and i) buy book Good English but bad serial-verb-Construction. Jamming the verbs together makes them fuse into something different than conjunction. The buying-paying is a single act with three actors. IIUC. > > I pay the-writer to-write the-book. > i pay man-write so he write book. Almost the same except there is a kind of switch-reference thing happening there, which I don't quite understand because nothing I found on the web describes this well. > you may want to tell from one another : > concomittance and finality (and, so) I am tempted to replace all conjunctions with verbs, just to be radical, whether it is possible or not. > successive actors (nouns, verbs, clauses) Same for clauses. I want to push everything into SVC's. > realis and irrealis (so that, in order to) >=20 > or rather, different degrees inbetween these "extremals" ;-) I should-will obtain some adverbs. Many are just weakened verbs.