Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adpositions

Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:44 PM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>> Logan Kearsley wrote:
>>> Consider the sentence "I ate the fruit on the table."
>>> In English, this is structurally ambiguous, because the prepositional
>>> phrase can apply to the verb or a noun- did I eat fruit which was on
>>> the table, or did I eat the fruit while I was on the table?
>>> I think someone mentioned a conlang that has a semantic distinction
>>> between adverbial and adjectival prepositions;
>> Quite likely, tho I can't think of one immediately. But Classical Latin
>> certainly makes a distinction. In CL prepositional phrases may be used only
>> adverbially.
>
> Not quite the same thing, I think. In that case, there's only one
> semantic class, and it does only one thing- modifying verbs; applying
> the same meaning to a noun requires some circumlocution to put a
> convenient extra verb in the way. It still avoids the ambiguity that
> arises in English from having a single semantic class that does two
> things,
It does - but I was merely trying to cite an example of a language which
does does distinguish between adjectival functions & adverbial ones.

> but it's different from having two distinct classes that each do one thing.
Or would a distinction between adpositions that head phrases used
adverbially & phrases used adjectivally be shown rather by a difference
of inflexion? In which case are not such adpositions rather to be
considered sub-classes of adverbs & adjectives respectively?

For example, let us suppose that Esperanto did mark prepositions in this
way; then we might have:
*mi mangxis la fruktojn sure la tablo = I ate the fruit [while I was] on
the table.

*mi mangxis la fruktojn surajn la tablo = I ate the fruit [which was] on
the table.

(Again I assume that 'fruit' in English is being used as a mass noun. I
believe - tho i could well be wrong - that 'frukto' is a count noun in
Esperanto.)

[snip]

>>> Then the case where the fruit was on the table before I ate it would
>>> be "I ate the fruit on the table", whereas the case where I ate the
>>> fruit while I was on the table would be "I ate the fruit the table on"
>>> / "I the table on ate the fruit".
>> I see; adpositional phrases use a preposition if they function adverbially
>> but a postposition if they function adjectivally. Interesting idea - somehow
>> I doubt that any natlang works like that - but you newer know with ANADEW
>>    ;)
>
> There are natlangs with mixed adpositional systems, aren't there?
Indeed - English is one of if you accept that _ago_ is a postposition
(but we've discussed _ago_ on this list more than once, and I am well
aware other analyses are possible).

Perhaps a better example is Latin where most adpositions are
prepositions, but there are some postpositions, e.g. _tenus_ (as far as,
up to) which _follows_ the ablative case.

There's the oddly behaved _cum_ which is normally a preposition, but is
always a postposition when it governs a personal pronoun, and can be
either if governs the relative or interrogative pronouns qui/quis.

Some languages have a greater number of adpositions occupying either
preposited or postposited positions. By AFAIK this is due to the way the
words developed from whatever they'd originally been (often adverbs) to
their status as adpositions, and that in these languages certain words
were (almost) always prepositions & others postpositions.

I
> wonder what else they'd be used for....
> I started contemplating altering one of my conlangs to use this sort
> of system (it would be a great post-fact historical explanation for
> why a few irregular features are the way they are), but I have a
> nagging feeling that it could result in different ambiguity as to
> which noun is supposed the object of an adposition;
That had actually occurred to me also.
-----------------------------------------------------

phil@PHILLIPDRISCOLL.COM wrote:
 > Logan Kearsley writes:
 >>
 >> Additional thought- how common is it to have adpositional phrases
 >> which can behave adjectivally at all?

Quite common, I think. They were there in Ancient Greek, e.g. hoi en
te:i ne:i andres = the in the boat people men = the men in the boat.

One could also omit the noun and just use the article if the meaning was
clear, e.g. hoi en te:i ne:i = the [people] in the boat

Although Classical Latin was strict in using prepositional phrases only
adverbially, in Late Latin & Medieval Latin they were certainly also
used adjectivally. AFAIK the use of prepositional phrases both
adjectivally & adverbially is fairly commonplace in (western?) European
languages.

 >> English has a habit of eliding
 >> lots of grammatical information like complementizers and relative
 >> pronouns and copulas in relative clauses,
 >> and so it just occurred to me that every instance of a prepositional
 >> phrase modifying a noun, like "the fruit on the table", could be
 >> explained as a relative clause that's been heavily elided- "the fruit
 >> [which is] on the table".

It could - it is not necessary IMO.

 > Good question. In English, participles usually come
 > before the noun. "I ate the stolen fruit." But if
 > there is more to the participle, it comes after: "I
 > ate the fruit stolen by my uncle." This could be
 > taken as an ellipsis of "I ate the fruit which was
 > stolen by my uncle."

It could - but that analysis falls down, I think, in languages where
participles are clearly marked with adjective endings.

 > Usually I see this in Esperanto as well: "Mi mangxis
 > la frukton ." But in books
 > by Scandinavian authors, the phrase is commonly
 > placed in front: "Mi mangxis la sxtelitan de mia
 > onklo frukton."

Yep - the latter is just like in ancient Greek or TAKE  :)

(But both ancient Greek and TAKE insists on repeating the definite
article if the phrase follows the noun, as tho one were to say: la
frukton la sxtelitan de mia onklo - I guess that just ain't allowed in E-o.)

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Replies