Zompist Bboard Again

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:25 pm In Nuuchahnulth, nouns can take tense affixes, e.g. house+past = 'what used to be a house', grandfather+past = '(my) late grandfather'. But it may be more accurate to say that roots can take both noun-like and verb-like affixes, the 'outermost' ones determining the syntactic class.

Do you happen to know what if any other "clausal" material can end up in these nouns? E.g., objects, adverbs, negation....

Ryan of Tinellb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:36 pm To me, the breaking mug is either meaningless/ungrammatical, or would be a "mug used for breaking". That is, break has to be taken as a transitive verb.

I suspect with context (e.g., in the course of a description of a mug hitting the ground after falling from a table) you'd understand it as intransitive.

Vijay wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:10 pmBut are adjectives a separate class from verbs in Korean and/or Japanese?

As I said in my post, non-verbal adjectives do form a very small closed class in Korean. These can only be tensed by deriving verbal forms. (The example I gave was 새 /say/ > 새롭다 /saylopta/, -롭다 /lopta/ being a common derivational suffix for descriptive verbs (e.g. 슬기 /sulki/ "intelligence" > 슬기롭다 /sulkilopta/ "intelligent").)

Ryan of Tinellb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:36 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:30 am English.
Oh, sure, only on participles, and only for intransitives (for transitives it's a distinction in voice), but the difference between "the breaking mug" and "the broken mug" is when the breaking takes/took place.

To me, the breaking mug is either meaningless/ungrammatical, or would be a "mug used for breaking". That is, break has to be taken as a transitive verb.

Really? The semantics are so strong that I see no difference between it and "the collapsing wall".

Circeus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:26 am

Ryan of Tinellb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:36 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:30 am English.
Oh, sure, only on participles, and only for intransitives (for transitives it's a distinction in voice), but the difference between "the breaking mug" and "the broken mug" is when the breaking takes/took place.

To me, the breaking mug is either meaningless/ungrammatical, or would be a "mug used for breaking". That is, break has to be taken as a transitive verb.

Really? The semantics are so strong that I see no difference between it and "the collapsing wall".

I think I've got it. A breaking heart sounds right, but the breaking of a mug seems too punctual (i.e.: too much a single short event) to allow a progressive meaning. So I guess...

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:24 am I suspect with context (e.g., in the course of a description of a mug hitting the ground after falling from a table) you'd understand it as intransitive.

...was correct.

Why not just remake Sal's point with

Circeus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:26 am"the collapsing wall".

and "the collapsed wall"? But again, the difference is actually one of aspect, not tense.