[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Gilruin
#2263
There are some nouns you can form from virtually any verb like a gerund "the action of doing X" or an agent noun "the person who does X". For the opposite direction there isn't really any 'obvious' derivation that works for basically any noun and the semantics are generally more complicated, e. g. think about how "to dust" in "to dust a cake" means in a way the opposite from "to dust the house". English is very happy to use nouns as verbs anyway but many other languages use it less frequently or with some further restrictions. Null-deriving verbs from nouns isn't forbidden in Quenya, e. g. tengwa- (which shows again that semantics are difficult because it looks like "to write, i. e. produce tengwar" to me, but actually means "to read, i. e. consume tengwar"). There are also other suffixes like telco "leg" -> telconta- "to stride, i. e. to leg smth.", but as I said, there isn't the one obvious process like the other way around and at least when I'm translating and find myself trying to do that, it usually means I did something wrong/bad/not elegant before.
However saura isn't a noun but an adjective and there are three relatively universal ways of forming verbs from those:
- Causative (primitive suffix -tā) "causing something to become X": ninque/ninqui- "white" -> ninquita- (past ninquitane) "to whiten, make white"
- Inceptive I (primitive suffix -tă) "to become X": ninque/ninqui- "white" -> ninquita- (past ninquinte) "to whiten, grow white"
- Inceptive II (primitive suffix -s(jā)) "to begin to become X": ninque/ninqui- "white" -> ninquirya- (past ninquitasse) "to (begin to) grow pale"
Those would yeald saurata- (sauratane), saurata- (saurante), saurarya- (saurasse) for saura (assuming that the analogy to such verbs from other adjectives would prevent the -rar- from dissimilating in the last form).