[Lexicog] semantic domains

[Wayne Leman]

--- In lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com, Peter Kirk <peterkirk at q...>
wrote:
On 12/01/2004 14:19, Kenneth C. Hill wrote:

>I'm afraid Rudy is in error regarding Hopi. The difference between
verbs
>and non-verbs is quite clear. It may look like nouns can function
like
>verbs in Hopi because Hopi (like, e.g., Russian) lacks a copula
except for
>morphologically marked (e.g., tensed) predicates. The element
equivalent
>to a copula, called "nexus" [-NEX-] in the Hopi Dictionary, is
obligatory
>under the right conditions with non-verbs and cannot be used with
verbs.
>
>
>
This is not like Russian. In Russian nouns never have any verb-like
morphology, except for verbalising derivational suffxes. It sounds
more
like Turkish, in which the present tense of the copula is a set of
suffixes which agree in person and number with the subject:

men turist-im "I am a tourist"
sen turist-sin "you are a tourist"
o turist-tir "he/she is a tourist"
biz turist-iz "we are tourists"
etc. (word carefully chosen to avoid special character problems)

The same suffixes are used as personal suffixes in some verb tenses,
e.g. the aorist:

men gel-er-im "I come"
sen gel-er-sin "you come"
o gel-er "he/she comes" - the personal suffix is omitted in the 3rd
person
biz gel-er-iz "we come"
etc.

- but these tenses are actually derived from a participial form e.g.
gel-er and the copula. So there is a clear morphological distinction
between nouns (or adjectives) and verbs; a verb can only take the
copula
if already nominalised or adjectivalised.

Also, nouns are more commonly used without the copula, e.g. as a
subject, a direct object, or with postpositions.

--
Peter Kirk
peter at q... (personal)
peterkirk at q... (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
--- End forwarded message ---