On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 4/16/2019 12:59 PM, Will Martin wrote:

We don’t seem to have a problem with the idea that {jI-} means the same entity is the subject of causation AND the subject of being hot, even though there is no explicit explanation of how this works

You want to understand?

Never say the phrase "subject of the causation" again.

You say it every time, and it's what gets you off track every time.

How it works is simple. The subject performs whatever the entire verb is. If there is a -moH on the verb, then the subject causes something to happen.

I don't grasp the distinction you are making between the ideas in "subject of the causation" and "subject [that] causes something to happen". You seem to think it's perfectly clear, but you've never been able to explain why the first phrase is bad and the second one is good.

Whether the subject performs the action described by the bare verb or any of its other suffixes is a matter of interpretation and context. Someone else might perform the action that is caused by the subject.

The someone else you mention would thus be the subject of the action, as opposed to being the subject of the causation, right?

There is no formula to determine who that is; you need to figure it out from context and the hints given to you by the verb and its suffixes...

Your lengthy analysis sounds to me like a wordier version of "...there is no explicit explanation of how this works."

-- ghunchu'wI'