Multiple conjugations for a verb-stem?
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Multiple conjugations for a verb-stem?
I've had a thought kicking around for a while - what if you had a verb that conjugated differently in different situations - for example, as a germanic weak verb when used transitively, but as a strong verb when intransitive. So the past tense of "I see you" becomes "I seed you" but past of "I see" is "I saw."
Is this attested? Completely ridiculous? Gimmicky?
As a PS - are there any good resources on how languages that mark verb valency changes do so?
Is this attested? Completely ridiculous? Gimmicky?
As a PS - are there any good resources on how languages that mark verb valency changes do so?
[quote="TomHChappell"]I don't know if that answers your question; is English a natlang?[/quote]
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Northern Germanic words for to burn (intransitive) and to burn (transitive).
I'll use Icelandic as the example. The infinitive for both words is brenna.
I burn (intransitive) is ég brenni, and so is I burn (transitive).
They have thus been the same so far, but now, let us have a look at the preterite tense.
I burned (intransitive) is ég brann, but I burned (transitive) is ég brendi.
I know somebody is going to come say that they are brinna and bränna in Swedish, but screw you.
They are both bränna in lots of dialects, and Standard Swedish is dreadful.
I'll use Icelandic as the example. The infinitive for both words is brenna.
I burn (intransitive) is ég brenni, and so is I burn (transitive).
They have thus been the same so far, but now, let us have a look at the preterite tense.
I burned (intransitive) is ég brann, but I burned (transitive) is ég brendi.
I know somebody is going to come say that they are brinna and bränna in Swedish, but screw you.
They are both bränna in lots of dialects, and Standard Swedish is dreadful.
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
When you say it like that, it doesn't sound so strange. Yeah, I guess that's what I'm talking about. As far as "hang" goes, I wonder if you could just think about it as two homophones with very similar meanings - i.e., haven't split off too much from eachother yet.eodrakken wrote:English has at least one verb that conjugates differently for different senses: hang (hung/hanged). Not a valence alternation, though. But I don't see any reason why you couldn't do it; all you're really talking about is having valence marking fused with other verb markers, right?
[quote="TomHChappell"]I don't know if that answers your question; is English a natlang?[/quote]
- Boşkoventi
- Lebom
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:22 pm
- Location: Somewhere north of Dixieland
I see iteodrakken wrote:English has at least one verb that conjugates differently for different senses
?I'm seeing it (may be possible in the sense of "I can now see it")
I'm seeing her
I have that book
*I'm having that book
I'm having dinner
I'm hungry
*I'm being hungry
I'm being good
Είναι όλα Ελληνικά για μένα.Radius Solis wrote:The scientific method! It works, bitches.
early PIE seems to have had two different sets of verb person-number inflections, the mi-Class for intransitive active-agentive subjects and transitive agents, and the h2e-Class for intransitive stative-patientive subjects. The stative conjugation seems to be the basis of the personal inflection in Late PIE Perfective/Non-Durative forms This is clearly a relic of an old Active-Stative morphosyntactical system in Weeping-Elf's hypothesized Proto-Europic preserved in my current project Alpic.
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
It's precisely because they've split off enough from each other that they have different conjugational patterns. New verbs (whether a new meaning to an existing verb, or a verb ending in the existing verb) tend to follow the regular pattern by analogy, regardless of the existing conjugational pattern of the incorporated verb.Kai_DaiGoji wrote:When you say it like that, it doesn't sound so strange. Yeah, I guess that's what I'm talking about. As far as "hang" goes, I wonder if you could just think about it as two homophones with very similar meanings - i.e., haven't split off too much from eachother yet.eodrakken wrote:English has at least one verb that conjugates differently for different senses: hang (hung/hanged). Not a valence alternation, though. But I don't see any reason why you couldn't do it; all you're really talking about is having valence marking fused with other verb markers, right?
Ex:
<put, put, put>
<input, inputted, inputted>
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
There's also the (slightly vulgar) example of the two senses of the verb to come: come_1, "to move towards" and come_2, "to ejaculate; to orgasm", often spelled cum.
come_1 is a common, irregular verb, it always forms the past tense with a vowel change: I came (pst). come_2 has the option of conjugating that way ("The man in the porno came all over the woman's face"), but it's also common to regularize the past tense formation, which is not possible with come_1: "I cummed all over her face", *"I cummed to the grocery store". Further, I'd wager that there's a subtle semantic difference between come_2 conjugated according to come_1, and come_2 conjugated regularly. come_2 conjugated regularly seems to specifically imply ejaculation, that is, something strongly associated with male orgasm, in a way that come_2 conjugated like come_1 doesn't. It feels odd to say "The woman cummed while having sex" instead of "The woman came while having sex", although the former does occur, but there's nothing odd about "The man cummed on something".
Maybe the distinction is that come_2 conjugated regularly is coming to mean "ejaculation directed at/towards somthing", an action which has two logical participants and would make come_2 tend towards having a complement, while come_2 conjugated like come_1 is coming to mean "have the physical experience of orgasm", without the implication of ejaculation, which licenses that sense to apply equally to men and women, without needing a complement.
come_1 is a common, irregular verb, it always forms the past tense with a vowel change: I came (pst). come_2 has the option of conjugating that way ("The man in the porno came all over the woman's face"), but it's also common to regularize the past tense formation, which is not possible with come_1: "I cummed all over her face", *"I cummed to the grocery store". Further, I'd wager that there's a subtle semantic difference between come_2 conjugated according to come_1, and come_2 conjugated regularly. come_2 conjugated regularly seems to specifically imply ejaculation, that is, something strongly associated with male orgasm, in a way that come_2 conjugated like come_1 doesn't. It feels odd to say "The woman cummed while having sex" instead of "The woman came while having sex", although the former does occur, but there's nothing odd about "The man cummed on something".
Maybe the distinction is that come_2 conjugated regularly is coming to mean "ejaculation directed at/towards somthing", an action which has two logical participants and would make come_2 tend towards having a complement, while come_2 conjugated like come_1 is coming to mean "have the physical experience of orgasm", without the implication of ejaculation, which licenses that sense to apply equally to men and women, without needing a complement.
con quesa- firm believer in the right of Spanish cheese to be female if she so chooses
"There's nothing inherently different between knowing who Venusaur is and knowing who Lady Macbeth is" -Xephyr
"There's nothing inherently different between knowing who Venusaur is and knowing who Lady Macbeth is" -Xephyr
Not the best example, but:
Cf. the intransitive use "I dreamt that I was a fish".Les Misérables wrote:I dreamed a dream in time gone by
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs. The classic example is a bit of American baseball terminology:
fly (v.) -> fly ball -> fly (v.)
"The batter flied out to center." (I.e. The batter hit a fly ball to center field which was caught by an opposing player.)
Con quesa's cum may also fit into this category. I think cum/cummed may be derived from the noun cum/come rather than directly from the associated verb.
Another example, from a bit of RPG terminology:
sleep (n., v.) > sleep spell > sleep (v.)
"He sleeped five of the orcs." (I.e. He cast a sleep spell which put five of the orcs to sleep.)
fly (v.) -> fly ball -> fly (v.)
"The batter flied out to center." (I.e. The batter hit a fly ball to center field which was caught by an opposing player.)
Con quesa's cum may also fit into this category. I think cum/cummed may be derived from the noun cum/come rather than directly from the associated verb.
Another example, from a bit of RPG terminology:
sleep (n., v.) > sleep spell > sleep (v.)
"He sleeped five of the orcs." (I.e. He cast a sleep spell which put five of the orcs to sleep.)
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Not sure if it adds anything to the discussion, but Swedish of course has a cognate to come, which is komma, and this word is irregular too.con quesa wrote:There's also the (slightly vulgar) example of the two senses of the verb to come: come_1, "to move towards" and come_2, "to ejaculate; to orgasm", often spelled cum.
come_1 is a common, irregular verb, it always forms the past tense with a vowel change: I came (pst). come_2 has the option of conjugating that way ("The man in the porno came all over the woman's face"), but it's also common to regularize the past tense formation, which is not possible with come_1: "I cummed all over her face", *"I cummed to the grocery store". Further, I'd wager that there's a subtle semantic difference between come_2 conjugated according to come_1, and come_2 conjugated regularly. come_2 conjugated regularly seems to specifically imply ejaculation, that is, something strongly associated with male orgasm, in a way that come_2 conjugated like come_1 doesn't. It feels odd to say "The woman cummed while having sex" instead of "The woman came while having sex", although the former does occur, but there's nothing odd about "The man cummed on something".
Maybe the distinction is that come_2 conjugated regularly is coming to mean "ejaculation directed at/towards somthing", an action which has two logical participants and would make come_2 tend towards having a complement, while come_2 conjugated like come_1 is coming to mean "have the physical experience of orgasm", without the implication of ejaculation, which licenses that sense to apply equally to men and women, without needing a complement.
We have borrowed the English semantics of come/cum as well, into our own komma.
No matter if we mean cum or not, though, we will always use the irregular reflection as usual.
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Another example is ring: "He rang the bell" vs. "He ringed the date in his calendar".linguoboy wrote:English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs. The classic example is a bit of American baseball terminology:
fly (v.) -> fly ball -> fly (v.)
"The batter flied out to center." (I.e. The batter hit a fly ball to center field which was caught by an opposing player.
Last edited by Echobeats on Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
As a baseball fan, I'll say the usually terminology I hear is "Flew out to center."Echobeats wrote:Another example is ring: "He rang the bell" vs. "He ringed the date on his calendar".linguoboy wrote:English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs. The classic example is a bit of American baseball terminology:
fly (v.) -> fly ball -> fly (v.)
"The batter flied out to center." (I.e. The batter hit a fly ball to center field which was caught by an opposing player.
[quote="TomHChappell"]I don't know if that answers your question; is English a natlang?[/quote]
A similar thing can happen with nouns too. Some people say mouses for more than one computer mouse. I'm trying to think of other examples... maybe the Maple Leafs hockey team?linguoboy wrote:English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs.
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
I was playing the game Careers the other day, where one must collect a ceratain amount of happinesses and fames in order to win.eodrakken wrote:A similar thing can happen with nouns too. Some people say mouses for more than one computer mouse. I'm trying to think of other examples... maybe the Maple Leafs hockey team?linguoboy wrote:English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs.
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
Yes, I agree and I have heard "flied out". As for sleep, I tend to think of that as ellipsis for "to cast a sleep spell", so it's not really the same word, and I would have thoiught it';d be capitalized as well.linguoboy wrote:English also has a well-known process of "systematic regularisation" with what might be called "rederived" verbs. The classic example is a bit of American baseball terminology:
fly (v.) -> fly ball -> fly (v.)
"The batter flied out to center." (I.e. The batter hit a fly ball to center field which was caught by an opposing player.)
Con quesa's cum may also fit into this category. I think cum/cummed may be derived from the noun cum/come rather than directly from the associated verb.
Another example, from a bit of RPG terminology:
sleep (n., v.) > sleep spell > sleep (v.)
"He sleeped five of the orcs." (I.e. He cast a sleep spell which put five of the orcs to sleep.)
Sometimes people use "be" instead of "are" or "is": the powers that be, or (to take from an example I remember from this board a few years ago) "When I play D&D, I always be a mage, because that is the class that I feel comfortable with."
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
As a fellow baseball fan, I more often hear "flied". We'll settle this objectively by comparing the number of World Series victories for our respective teams.Kai_DaiGoji wrote:As a baseball fan, I'll say the usually terminology I hear is "Flew out to center."
Just thought of another batch of examples: compounds with "-light", e.g. highlighted, spotlighted, greenlighted, etc. (Though the unregularised versions are also common in some cases.)
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:51 pm
I'm a Giants fan, and you know more than me, so I yield on both counts.linguoboy wrote:As a fellow baseball fan, I more often hear "flied". We'll settle this objectively by comparing the number of World Series victories for our respective teams.Kai_DaiGoji wrote:As a baseball fan, I'll say the usually terminology I hear is "Flew out to center."
Just thought of another batch of examples: compounds with "-light", e.g. highlighted, spotlighted, greenlighted, etc. (Though the unregularised versions are also common in some cases.)
[quote="TomHChappell"]I don't know if that answers your question; is English a natlang?[/quote]
Nitpicks: Brenn, not brenni and ég brenndi, not ég brendi.Skomakar'n wrote:Northern Germanic words for to burn (intransitive) and to burn (transitive).
I'll use Icelandic as the example. The infinitive for both words is brenna.
I burn (intransitive) is ég brenni, and so is I burn (transitive).
They have thus been the same so far, but now, let us have a look at the preterite tense.
I burned (intransitive) is ég brann, but I burned (transitive) is ég brendi.
I know somebody is going to come say that they are brinna and bränna in Swedish, but screw you.
They are both bränna in lots of dialects, and Standard Swedish is dreadful.
These kinds of pairs are pretty common in Icelandic. The weak, transitive verbs derived from the intransitive strong ones are called orsakarsagnir or causative verbs. They increase their valency by one through this derivational process.
Interesting one. There the new sense of the noun becomes a count noun, where the original was mass. Not unlike "They ordered two waters", meaning they ordered two glasses of water.Åge Kruger wrote:I was playing the game Careers the other day, where one must collect a ceratain amount of happinesses and fames in order to win.
Reminds me of some conjugation humor that came up when I was playing WoW years ago. In that game you use a verb "to sheep", meaning to turn something into a sheep. A friend of mine was telling us to sheep something again when the spell ended -- this was over voice chat -- and ended up saying, "It needs to be kept shept."linguoboy wrote:"He sleeped five of the orcs."