Chinese adpositions (was: Re: inalienable pos

Nik wrote :

Douglas Koller wrote:
> > Sure it *translates* into English as "for", but the price you pay for
> > saying that it *means* "for" or that it's a preposition is that instead
> > of SVOVO, you have: S(prep. phrase)VO (prep. and post. [actually
> > circum.] phrases go before the verb...weeeeell except they sometimes go
> > after, here, here, here, and here).
>
> But aren't some of those "verbs" *only* used as adpositions?  I suppose
> that at times it is rather iffy as to whether a word is adpositional or
> nominal/verbal.
>
I experience it is very rare because when meaning is unclear you can always
precise by adding S in front of the verb to show the begining of a new
noun-clause. Plus : prepositions are either *adverbal* or *adjectival* :
compare :
the belt around her waist.
I water corn around the field.
and you still guess from the right meaning from the context (and *around* is a
poor example anyway ;-).
English adjectives are also either *adjectives to a noun* or *adverbs to a noun* :
she is the nice dancer = *she is a dancer who is a nice person * or *she is the
dancer who dances nicely*.
You pick the right meaning by choosing within *dancer* either the *activity of
dancing* or the *person* beside the activity is *someone*. *Agent noun* is the
mix of both.
In other words you pick the right degree of integration implied in context.
Well, that's the same with prepositional verbs : you select the right integration
within the sentence from main predicate to connected argument.
My conlangs precise the degree of integration by SYNTACTIC DEICTIC PRONOUNS :
adj. : the belt IT go-around her waist.
verb-adv. : I water corn WHICH go-around the field.
connective : corn I water IT WHICH go-around the field
noun-phrase : I like THAT go-around the field. Mathias

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=18584