Re: Adposition or Case for Ground of Motion

Charlie/Chris Bates et al. have written:

> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@N...>
> wrote:
>
> >Similarly, surely: I go the-house-GROUND would mean I go away from
> >the house since go encodes path away from ground.
>
> Why could it not equally mean "I go out of the house" or "I go around
> the house" or "I go by the house" or "I go into the house" or "I go
> through the house" or "I go on top of the house," etc.?  Why does "go"
> exclusively encode "away from?
>
I'm reminded of some discussion not too long ago about
_ventives_ --particles that are added to verbal forms to indicate direction
to/away from the speaker or the focus of the narrative. (Is this perhaps
what Chris means by "ground"?-- otherwise I find his exs. a little odd.)
Thus for most verbs of motion, you only need one form; the directionality is
supplied by the affix.

John went up the stairs = John VERB+{away from spkr/focus} stairs

John came down the stairs = John VERB+{toward spkr/focus} stairs

Note that in Engl. "John climbed up the ladder" it's ambiguous whether the
motion is toward or away from speaker; an obligatory ventive would clarify.

On 2/27/05 Tom Wier provided an email with exs from Akkadian and Meskwaki
IIRC.