Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

Daniel:
> Henrik wrote:
>
> > I'd like to know what ways exist of rendering the verb
> > 'to have' in other languages (both natural and constructed).
>
> There are three basic ways of doing this. Unfortunately, I
> can't find the papers I have on it, but something like this:
>
> 1. Location. If you see a boy with a dog at his feet all
>    day, you can guess it's his dog.
>
>    AT me is a dog.
>
> 2. Possession. The verb "have" usually comes from a verb meaning
>    'to hold' or 'to grasp'. E.g. Sw. _ha_ < _hålla_.
>
>    I HAVE a dog.
>
> 3. I'm a bit uncertain about this one. It is supposed to be
>    something like Location. IIRC it's "Comitative" or "Movement
>    towards/Allative", i.e. "WITH me is a dog" or "TO me is a dog."
There are some arguments for analysing possessive HAVE in English as
a special way of pronouncing underlying BE WITH. IOW, English
superficially looks like a (2) but is in fact a (3).

--And.