Fusing the noun and verb in a way...

[Darkgamma]

... that you can not morphologically differentiate them, but still retain all the cases, aspects, voices, syntax and all that is a hard job. When you for example say "Waapa waapa" (made up), it could mean four things "Running to run", "To run running" "To run to run", and "Running running", you say it in a grammatically correct way, by making the verb in its basic form, infinitive maybe, and the noun in its basic case. But later on, when more serious stuff comes, like tempus, aspect, voice, branching et cetera, you get declination of the verb through definitiveness, genitive case, antipassive voice, imperfective aspect, present continuous, 7th person, imperative mood, confusion occurs. So it occured to me, why not tolerate all that?

[Thakowsaizmu]

I think for the most part context would factor in. That, and a tonne of particles to signify what is meant. Such as, to use your example, "waapa ne waapa" running to run

[Czwartek]

What do running to run, to run running, to run to run, and running running mean? The only ones which could be considered grammatically correct, I believe, would be running to run (running for the sake of running) and to run running (to run while running), the latter using the word 'running' completely redundantly.

Also, what's anti-passive voice and 7th person?

[MrKrov]

You mean like using the same root as both a noun and verb? That's kinda already done to some extent.

I have no idea what a 7th person is but the anti-passive is the erg-abs equivalent of the nom-acc passive. (what a nonanswer I know)

[Darkgamma]

I just added the 7th person as a hypothetical person. Possibly all that, but "waapa waapa" translated into "to run running" or "running to run" wasn't meant to be the English version, but just the basic version of the noun and the bare infinitive. Yes, antipassive is the equivalent of the passive, but what I wanted to ask, Why not tolerate all those, verb-like words that have case, tense, aspect, person, gender, definitiveness, voice, mood, et cetera, yet have that language function. Is that possible?

[Czwartek]

Are you asking if it's possible to have a functional language that uses case, tense, mood, person, gender, definiteness and voice? There are many natlangs which do, including English. What exactly are you asking? :-s

[Etherman]

Are you suggesting that there's one word class that includes what an English speaker would classify as nouns and verbs? Or are you suggesting that a given root can function as a noun or a verb? If the latter then this happens, to some extent at least, in plenty of languages. E.g. the word fish can be a noun or verb in English. If the former then I know of no natlang that does it. A number of conlangs have eliminated either nouns or verb, but I don't know of any that have combined them into a single word class that is neither noun nor verb.

[Czwartek]

I don't know of any that have combined them into a single word class that is neither noun nor verb.

*coughIthkuilcough* :oops:

[MrKrov]

Some cough medicine'll remedy that up. No need to post sick.

[Darkgamma]

I suggested the former, one word class that includes both the verb and the noun, and treat them as simmilar if not same.

[Etherman]

I don't know of any that have combined them into a single word class that is neither noun nor verb.

*coughIthkuilcough* :oops:

That's not a language, that's insanity manifested in a Caucasian-like phonology.