Print

Print


>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.