Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

Post by eldin raigmore » 31 Jul 2019 03:59

Oil In My Lamp wrote:
19 Jul 2019 06:36
.... I had not considered having different kinds of objects, with the exception that I do have an indirect object showing the secondary recipient of some action or recipient of some object (although I would prefer that it not imply a literal recipient, as in specifically receiving a thing, but rather someone/thing involved in the action somehow). ....
If I am not mistaken about my source, and if they haven’t changed it, the SIL Glossary defines (or used to define?) “recipient” as “being or entity who/which is aware of being affected” by whatever the clause is talking about.
This could be the witness in a “show” clause, or the audience in a “tell” clause.
It needn’t be what’s meant by “recipient” when that’s not a grammatical term.

User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

Post by Ser » 26 Aug 2019 08:47

Omzinesý wrote:
27 Jul 2019 15:30
Differentiating between adpositions and adverbs in modern Germanic langs is even harder than in Finnish.
(3) I [went in] the house.
or
(4) I went [in the house].
This is fine if it's about the writing system, but these interpretations have different pronunciations. Adverbs are more strongly stressed.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2672
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

Post by Omzinesý » 27 Aug 2019 14:50

Ser wrote:
26 Aug 2019 08:47
Omzinesý wrote:
27 Jul 2019 15:30
Differentiating between adpositions and adverbs in modern Germanic langs is even harder than in Finnish.
(3) I [went in] the house.
or
(4) I went [in the house].
This is fine if it's about the writing system, but these interpretations have different pronunciations. Adverbs are more strongly stressed.
In phrasal verbs too?

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

Post by eldin raigmore » 28 Aug 2019 04:51

One of the reasons I took such a long hiatus in participating on CONLANG-L was that when I analyzed “believe in” as a two-part verb, Ray Brown came down so heavily on me.
So you should be warned that, while indecision and confusion and equivocation and ambivalence about this, is probably the current state of knowledge, there will be people (who are not crackpots) who are very passionate about each side of the debate. And that there is, in fact, a debate.

User avatar
Ser
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: Different Way of Doing Adpositions - help request

Post by Ser » 29 Aug 2019 02:29

Omzinesý wrote:
27 Aug 2019 14:50
Ser wrote:
26 Aug 2019 08:47
This is fine if it's about the writing system, but these interpretations have different pronunciations. Adverbs are more strongly stressed.
In phrasal verbs too?
How do you define the term "phrasal verb"? Different authors use very different definitions.

At one extreme, some authors say that any verb that lexically determines an accompanying preposition or adverb counts as a "phrasal verb" (so, "go to the post office", "believe in somebody", "turn left", "run down the mountain", "give up one's aspirations", "come up with a new idea"...). And at the other extreme, the term is reserved for verbs that lexically determine an adverb with a resulting idiomatic usage that is "unpredictable" from the constituent words (so, "give up one's aspirations" and "come up with a new idea", but not the previous four other examples).
eldin raigmore wrote:
28 Aug 2019 04:51
One of the reasons I took such a long hiatus in participating on CONLANG-L was that when I analyzed “believe in” as a two-part verb, Ray Brown came down so heavily on me.
So you should be warned that, while indecision and confusion and equivocation and ambivalence about this, is probably the current state of knowledge, there will be people (who are not crackpots) who are very passionate about each side of the debate. And that there is, in fact, a debate.
Personally I see that as a philosophical failure on Ray Brown's part though, since, as you describe it, you and him simply had a semantic dispute over what can count as a "verb".

The topic is certainly more interesting than that, especially in light of the Indo-European development of adverbs into both prepositions and derivational prefixes (giving birth to e.g. the separable verbs of German and the directional verbs of Latin). I can easily imagine applying parallel reinterpretations of adpositions into verbal affixes in conlangs, e.g. (in a language with OV order and postpositions):

[Old Just-made-up-ese]
ke-ər pə yalu-m
2SG-ACC in believe-1SG
'I believe in you, I put my hope in you'

evolves into:

[New Just-made-up-ese]
ker pyalo-n
2SG.ACC trust-1SG
'I trust you'

The lexically-determined selection of 'in' with yalu 'to believe' in Old Just-made-up-ese gradually gets reinterpreted as a "two-part" verb that then becomes the "one-part" verb pyalo in New Just-made-up-ese.

Post Reply