Re: Dangling prepositions and phrasal verbs.

En réponse à Mark P. Line :


>Christophe Grandsire said:
> >
> > In Dutch, there is a strong ban against using prepositions with the neuter
> > personal pronoun ("het": it) and neuter demonstrative pronouns ("dit":
> > this
> > and "dat": that). You cannot have phrases like *"aan het": to it, *"op
> > dit": on this or *"met dat": with that. So what do you do? Simple: you
> > replace the pronoun with its corresponding spatial adverb ("er" for "het",
> > "hier" for "dit" and "daar" for "dat". "hier" and "daar" are obvious
> > cognates of "here" and "there", and "er" is used in "er is": "there is")
> > and you *suffix* it the preposition. So you get "eraan": to it, "hierop":
> > on this, and "daarmee": with that
>
>
>And to think that I've been mixing up "suffix" and "prefix" for decades.
You haven't (and I haven't either). My way of talking was unclear. I meant 
that the prepositions were *suffixed* to the adverbs. I did that by turning 
the verb "to suffix" into a ditransitive one, in such a way that I had 
already seen on the list. Sorry if I used it in a way that you 
misunderstood. Maybe you should remember that however well my English 
appears to be, I am and stay a non-native, and you can't expect me to be 
perfectly clear all the time. I understand that it was unclear, but it's 
not a reason to flame a bystander that has *not* one minute said anything 
against you in the thread that apparently makes you so angry (in fact, I 
*haven't participated it at all). So may I know why I have been taken as 
target?

>I'm glad I wasn't explaining this, because I'm sure I would have screwed
>up and said that "er", "hier" and "daar" are *prefixed" to the
>prepositions. (Actually, I might have *REALLY* screwed up and called them
>clitics, and not affixes at all.)
You could, and would have been as right as me, since I was talking about 
the *prepositions* being suffixed. I just took the adverbs as being the 
center of the compounds and the preposition as being peripheric. This is 
*not* a professional analysis, just the one I used myself to understand the 
construction and reproduce it in a way that Dutch people seem to find 
appropriate.

>And then half a dozen people would have argued with me, telling me that
>I'm just guessing and that these could be seen as suffixes just as easily
>(you can't be so Platonic when defining terms like these, you know), that
>it's merely my supposition anyway, that I may only be guessing since
>there's no evidence that I know anything about Dutch, and probably others
>that I can't even anticipate.
Listen, so far, I was completely on your side in the thread about Rotokas, 
and was about to write an e-mail supporting you and your view of things. 
But since I'm attacked while I didn't say anything against you or 
questioning your academic knowledge, I think I'll just pass this time. You 
just lost one of your supporters Mark. When you begin attacking innocent 
bystanders, whatever wrong has been done to you cannot justify that.

>Boy, I'm glad I stayed out of that one. Thanks for helping me get my
>terminology straight, Christophe. Suffixes it is, then.
Sarcasm won't help get your point across, you know. Now I suggest you stop 
your computer, get out, breathe some fresh air in slow inspirations and 
expirations, and carry on until the feeling of anger that is obviously 
controlling you at the moment goes away to be replaced with some serenity. 
I have myself a difficult temperament which can make me behave the way you 
just did, and I know how bad it is, so I'll try not to take your sarcasm as 
a personal offense. You will understand however how difficult it is.

I hope that when everything has settled down, we will be able to carry on 
things on this list in the friendly manner that is more common here, i.e. 
where we can disagree without resorting to sarcasm or insults.

Regards,

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.