Before I continue this post, I shall remind readers that I unfortunately conflate "structural terms" and "functional terms", the latter being more acceptable amongst linguists (but idc because it's much simpler for me to describe my conlang from its perspectives and principles).Ser wrote: ↑03 Dec 2019 08:40Uh, and what natlang is it that you happen to speak? "Passive noun" and "possessive verb" don't sound like normal terms at all, especially because in your post you seemingly imply these terms stand for "passive derived from a noun" and "possessive derived from a verb" (as opposed to "passive verbal noun derived from a verb", etc.). I know nothing about Griuskant though, perhaps it'd make sense to me if I read about it.
When I say "passive noun" and/or "possessive verbs", these are structural terms as I would call them because they describe what one does with the morphemes/affixes, but these do not describe what they (linguistically) do. Certainly, there are "passive derived from a noun", "possessive derived from a verb" and "passive verbal noun derived from a verb" in my conlang as well, but these are not what I'm referring to with these 2 terms. Functionally, "passive nouns (str)" appear quite commonly in English and they are called something else, but there isn't a regular construction for it and there aren't strong links to other (cultural/mechanical) parts of the language, so there really isn't a reason to name it as such.
Again, there is nothing new/special/unique here, it's just random trivia that don't matter much in the grand scheme of terminologies.