Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amanda Babcock" <langs@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot


> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:31:26AM -0400, John Leland wrote:
>
> > Classical grammarians or Renaissance scholars or what? Likewise why do
> > English dictionaries list verbs under the root (present tense active)
> > form, but normally use the infinitive "to" construction in the
definition?
>
> Er, I don't think they really do list it under the present tense active
> form.  I think they list it under the "infinitive minus to" form.
Otherwise,
> "be" would be found under "am", "are" or "is", wouldn't it?
Yes.  I would say that they list it under the infinitive stem, as shown by
'be', the only verb, I believe, which has a different infinitive than its
present first person active(someone correct me if they can think of
another).

> Amanda
>