I might not be able to post much for a week or so, so I'm counting on you guys to discuss this lively-style
- nomimono: lit. "drink (transitive) thing", "a drink"
- tabemono: "eat thing", "something to eat, food"
- kakimono: "write thing", "a document, writing"
- atemono: "guess thing", "a riddle"
- araimono: "wash thing", "washing, laundry"
But:
- kowaremono: "break (intransitive) thing", "breakable, fragile item" or "broken item"
- ikimono: "live thing", "living thing, animal"
- narimono: "make a sound thing", "musical instrument"
It seems that if you add -mono to the renyoukei of a transitive verb, you get the meaning of "something which is itself [verb]ed". But if you add -mono to an intransitive verb, you get "something which [verb]s".
So, my question is, is this a kind of ergative-absolutive system, or is there a simpler explanation?
Special bonus complicated exception: iremono ("put [something] in [something else] (transitive) thing") means "container". In other words, even though it's formed from a transitive verb, its meaning is not "something which is itself [verb]ed". On the other hand, an iremono isn't a direct object, it's an indirect object ("I put the book into the box"), which may make it an exception to the rule.
roy:
The difference between transitive and instransitive in Japanese is often a point of amusement for me. Sitting in the train, and the like, contemplating the relative importance of T/I compared to that of English. It's neat.
If the result of the lively-style discussion is that its an Ergative element, so much the better for my linguistic day dreams.