Re: Triggeriness ...

>Sa is used when you aren't using the locative trigger, because you need to
>indicate where something is happening, since the verb isn't telling you
>that the verb is occuring somewhere, so you need sa to indicate that.
>
>It's easier (for me) to think of it as a preposition, because it indicates
>where something is happening (some grammar books will call it a
>locative/directional marker).
I don't see why you shouldn't think of it
as a preposition, because that's what it is.
That some grammar books choose to call it
"locative/directional marker" only helps
in keeping the 'tempest-in-a-teapot' going
on, like choosing to call subjects "trigger".
One could equally well choose to name English
preposition 'in' as "locative marker" and
English subjects "trigger", and this choice
wouldn't affect English grammar, it would
only introduce 'exoticness' into its
description and most probably confusion
for many people.

That the label "preposition" probably isn't
the one best-suited to describe what it
stands for? (since e.g. Latin prepositions
can be glued as prefixes to the verb and
in English they can be used alone, and
moreover they are the same grammatical
device as Hindi and Japanese postpositions,
so there's no good reason why they shouldn't
be called the same - say, stay with
"adposition" and only when necessary
qualify it as "pre-adposition" and
"post-adposition" - because one doesn't
call objects "preobjects" and "postobjects"
according to whether they are pre- or
postverbal)

OK, I fully agree, but that inaccurate
label is the one that is already standard
and 'familiar' and the one most people
have an idea of what it refers to,
so changing it often doesn't clarify
confusion but only aggravates it.

Cheers,
Javier