Re: Italian vs Turkish

From: mb (azythos2_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: 12 Jan 2005 09:34:47 -0800

aslan kral wrote:
> mb wrote:
> : Your own definition of infixes?
>
> I should define the suffix first.
>
> #define SUFFIX(x, y) x ## y
> where I will call the x as modifiee (stem)
> and y as modifier (suffix)
......
> The suffix function is enough for Turkish. You can encode anything
> with it.
> You don't need any infix function. But since you ask for it, I would
> define
> it as follows.
.......
> If you have any other definition let us know. Can you show an example
> in Turkish into which you would insert an infix somewhere in the
> middle in a way to modify it.

No need for a huge formulaic rewording for something so simple. If you
want "infix" reserved for the proper use of "insert within a root" all
you have to do is just say that you want a precise formulation. I don't
care, it's simple enough: In Tr, we have "suffixes" that stand
terminally on their own, and other additions that do not. For instance
that -e- when it is not in optative function. I don't care if you want
to call it John or Mary.

So replace by "John" or "Mary":
>
> : This case is an infix if one considers this -E as different than
the
> -E
> : suffix of the optative / wishing form (i.e. this one is not usable
> : without an additional tense suffix). I agree it is borderline, and
> one
> : could defend that it is the same optative -E, though.
>
> What you are saying here is not clear to me. What are you referring
to
> with "This case"?

_In_ this case, it is not the -e of a wish form like verb-e "gele". The
-e- here is not part of the -bil suffix.

> : No similarities again.
> : The lat is not -umus
>
> Oh REALLY. I thought my source was OK. Why should I belive you?
> Because you said so? You didn't even tell what it is if it is not
> -umus. Why don't you tell the correct one so that I can check with
> some other source which is right which is wrong.
The -u- is not part of it.

Relevant Pages