Re: THEORY: Xpositions in Ypositional languages {X,Y}={pre,post}

First off: I am still mostly interested in:
(1) What is cross-linguistically common among postpositions in prepositional
languages?
(2) What is cross-linguistically common among prepositions in postpositional
languages?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:38:48 +0200, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
wrote:
>Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
>[snip]
>Dryer would here no doubt protest that a clitic indicating the case role of a
>nominal phrase *is* an adposition. Op. cit:
>"Such clitic case markers, which attach to modifiers of the noun if
>they are at the beginning or end of the noun phrase, are treated here
>as instances of adpositions since they combine syntactically with
>noun phrases, even though they are not separate phonological words."
>[snip]
>I don't know if anybody has really tried: Eldin has suggest the possibility, but
>that's about all.
>More interesting, surely, is Dryer's category of "inposition", for adpositions
>that occur inside a noun phrase (but *not* inside one of the constitutive
>words!). Whether we need a separate word for them is a judgement call, but
>it seems clear enough to me they're conceptually different from
>pre/postposition that strictly precede/follow their noun phrase.
> Andreas
Now I want to mention: I am still mostly interested in:
(1) What is cross-linguistically common among postpositions in prepositional
languages?
(2) What is cross-linguistically common among prepositions in postpositional
languages?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

About inpositions:  As others have pointed out I misunderstood Dryer.  As I
now understand it (assuming that even now I understand correctly), for him to
count something as an adposition _in_that_paper_, it has to be a case-marker
which is either a free word or a clitic, whose position (relative to the noun-
phrase which is its complement) is _syntactically_ determined (rather than, I
assume, _morphologically_ determined).
As others have pointed out the inclusion of clitics allows for certain problems
to arise; sometimes its hard to tell a clitic from an affix.  (It's also sometimes
hard to tell a clitic from a free word, but for this particular purpose that's not
a relevant problem).
So, a case-marker which is always before its complement noun-phrase, Dryer
calls a preposition (for purposes of this paper).  Even if it's always proclitic on
the first word of the noun-phrase, provided that's not always the noun.  But if
it's always proclitic on the noun, he calls it a case-prefix for purposes of this
paper; or at least he doesn't call it an adposition.
A case-marker which is always after its complement noun-phrase, Dryer calls a
postposition for purposes of this paper.  Even if it's always enclitic on the last
word of the noun-phrase, proviced that's not always the noun.  But if it's
always enclitic on the noun, he calls it a case-suffix for purposes of this
paper; or at least he doesn't call it an adposition.
A case-marker which always is inserted into its complement noun-phrase,
Dryer calls an inposition for purposes of this paper.  Perhaps it is always the
second word; perhaps it is always the next-to-last word; perhaps it is always
enclitic on the first word, whether or not that's the noun (provided it isn't
always the noun); perhaps it is always proclitic on the second word, whether
or not that's the noun (provided it isn't always the noun); perhaps it is always
proclitic on the last word, whether or not that's the noun (provided it isn't
always the noun); perhaps it's always enclitic on the penultimate word,
whether or not that's the noun (provided it isn't always the noun).

Dryer didn't want to call something an adposition just because of its meaning.
So the infixes in Tagalog and other Philippine languages, even if their meaning
is like the meanings of adpositions in other languages, would be infixes but not
inpositions by the terminology Dryer uses in this paper.

This still doesn't answer Ray's doubts about the existence of inpositions.  But
notice that in Dryer's 1047-language sample he found only 7 languages in
which "inpositions" were the dominant type of adposition.  The possibility
exists that he did find inpositions in some other languages in that sample; this
paper doesn't say whether or not he did.  But, if he did, either no single type
of adposition was dominant, or prepositions were dominant, or postpositions
were dominant, in those languages.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It also makes it extremely unlikely that it would even be possible to define
a "superposition" or a "transposition" that would fit Dryer's paper's definition of
an adposition.  Nevertheless I'm grateful to David and others for thinking up a
possible superposition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen adpositions which can occur as either pre- or post-
called "circumpositions".  I have also seen obligatorily-paired pre- and post- -
positions called "circumpositions".  IMO it would be good to have different
terms for the two ideas.  I think the obligatorily-paired pre- and post- -
position has the better claim on the term "circumposition"; and some other
term should be used for the adpositions which can be either prepositions or
postpositions.  But I do not know what to call them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly I wish to point out: I am still mostly interested in:
(1) What is cross-linguistically common among postpositions in prepositional
languages?
(2) What is cross-linguistically common among prepositions in postpositional
languages?

Reply