Re: movement

On 3/29/06, Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Which reminds me: in Dutch, it works just like that:
> >
> >   Ik loop de  stad in.
> >   I  walk the city in
> >   'I walk into the city.'
> >
> > vs.
> >   Ik loop in de  stad.
> >   I  walk in the city
> >   'I walk in(side) the city.'
> >
>
> My instinct here would not be to interpret that as a postposition but
> as part of the verb, where 'inlopen' means 'to walk into'.  I guess
> the easiest way to figure whether that is true is to see if you say
> 'Ik heb de stad ingelopen', or 'Ik heb de stad in gelopen'.  Since
> I don't know Dutch, I can't tell you.
>
My guess would be that there is a grey area in which two interpretations
are possible. In this case, you're probably right:

Ik loop de stad in.
I walk into the city.

Ik ben de stad ingelopen.
I've walked into the city.

Note that the use of the auxiliary "zijn" indicates that the verb itself
is a directional verb.

OTOH:

Ik kijk de stad in.
I watch into the city.

Ik heb de stad in gekeken.
I've watched into the city.

This is definitely *not* the verb "inkijken", which has a different
meaning (to browse through).
Likewise:

Waar hebben zij het geld op gelegd?
Where did they put the money?

This is *not* "opleggen", which has a different meaning.

René