[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, "Rex May" <rmay@m...> wrote:
> We of course have "fa", which can make an intransitive verb
> transitive, as in "calfa" and "parfa", as well as working in other
> ways much like the Esperano '-igi'. Now, it occurs to me that
> English does quite well in most instances by using the same form of
> the verb for both intransitive and transitive.
>
> The food is cooking.
> He is cooking the food.
> He stopped.
> He stopped me.
> The paper burns.
> I burn the paper.
>
> It seems that only the fact that a direct object never shows up
tells
> the listener that we have an intransitive verb.
>
Agree, and it seems a workable rule.
> Now, can ceqli operate that way? At least, nonformal ceqli that
also
> can do without articles and such?
>
> to komxo gi tunu.
> da gi tunu to komxo.
> da pa par.
> da pa par go.
> to buma bern.
> go bern to buma.
>
> I don't know how far to go with this. In theory, since adjectives
> are all just 'stative' verbs in ceqli, we could have:
>
> to hon hoq.
> The book is red.
> go hoq to hon.
> I redden the book.
>
> Though, as an English speaker, I'd be very much more inclined to
> use "hoqfa."
So far, so good. Admittedly, our English brains want to see a
difference between "to cause to burn" and "to be red", so we think
of "bern" as a verb and "hoq" as an adjective. But I don't think
there is a real difference. Loglan uses these stative verbs as a
comparitive mechanism -- "to be redder than" -- but I think "to cause
to be red" is an equally good interpretation of "hoq", whether
intransitive ("The book causes itself to be red") or transitive ("I
cause the book to be red").
>
> With prepositions, however, there is always an object anyway (I
> think), so I don't think we can handle it that way.
>
> pani dan spun.
> Water is in the spoon.
> *go dan pani spun.
Now it gets tricky. 'Water causes-itself-to-be-within spoon' vs. 'I
cause-to-be-within water spoon'. If a preposition acts as a
transitive verb, then its object ("spun") must function as the direct
object of the verb ("dan"). So "go dan spun pani" might be closer to
correct, but we'd still need a marker to identify "pani" as the
INDIRECT object of the verb "dan".
>
> Though I don't see why we can't make a compound word:
>
> go spundan pani.
> I in-spoon the water.
>
> I'd say let's allow it, and see what develops. Reactions?
As long as we have a generic indirect object marker, sure.
--K