Re: motion verbs in Tokana

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:39:03 -0600, Matt Pearson
<jmpearson@...> wrote:

>Tokana used to have these constructions too, forms like "up-climb",
>"out-go", "away-run", "back-come".  But after I purged Tokana of
>prepositions, having prepositionally-derived directional prefixes
>began to seem anomalous.  With the introduction of manner prefixes,
>trajectory is now encoded solely by verb roots, and the directional
>prefixes can be eliminated.  So instead of "niokpenta" (= "back-run")
>for "run back", Tokana now has "paniokta" (= "running-return", i.e.
>"return by running").  This new way of doing things seems to me
>to fit the 'spirit' of Tokana better.
It is not so unusual that Tokana uses the 'return running' type instead
of 'run back'.

I find it much more intriguing that it combines a limited set of
manner modifiers (prefixes) with (structurally) unlimited number of
trajectory verbs. (I believe that 'limited' is implied by the
'quasi-regular fashion' of derivation mentioned in your previous post.)

I immediately recall quite a few natlangs that do it the other way round:
unlimited number of 'manner verbs' combined with a limited set of
'spatial' modifiers (no matter which component is syntactically
governing). E. g.:

Adverbial modifiers (becoming preverbs) in most I-E langs
Same, repeated, in all Germanic langs ('separable prefixes' and the like)
Japanese (compound verbs incorporating the stem of a 'direction verb')
Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, and a lot of other SE Asian langs ('direction
 verbs' used as modifiers)
At least some Polynesian langs (special syntactic constructions with
 'direction verbs' conveying concepts like 'run back').

Is there any special reason for this?

Are there any contradictory examples among natlangs?

At any rate, the Tokana system appears truly original. All this looks
worth exploring in depth. I am really interested to hear more about it,
especially if you come to any generalizations.


Basilius