|From:||Tim May <butsuri@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, January 20, 2005, 23:56|
# 1 wrote at 2005-01-06 02:01:17 (-0500)
> Now I beggin to understand more the english language, I also think
> to use composed verbs like in english, it's as interesting as it's
> something inexistant in frensh, I don't know if it can be a
> disadvantage because I don't master it perfectly, or an advantage
> because I don't beggin with ideas about how to make it.
> I like the fact than the link between "go up", "go down", "go out",
> and "go in" is easier to perceive than in frensh between "monter",
> "décendre", "sortir", and "entrer"
> In english, by itself the word "go" doesn't means nothing but an
> abstract idea of movement or changing. It needs the preposition
> "to" or an adverb to mean something concreate.
This is related to Talmy's typology of motion events, in which English
is a "satellite-framed" language, and most Romance languages are
"verb-framed". The details are summarised here:
You might find the following paper on the consequences of the
typology, and proposed extensions to it, interesting.