Re: Locative constructions in a:seka`eni (long)
| From: | James W. <emindahken@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, August 9, 2006, 15:47 |
|---|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:16:09 +0200, "Henrik Theiling"
<theiling@...> said:
> Hi!
>
> James W. writes:
> > I'm currently working on the locative constructions in
> > a:seka`eni. ...
>
> Hehe, that's something I constantly think about in my engelangs,
> too. :-)
Yes, but a:seka`eni is not an engelang... :)
> > I found a really interesting paper by Marcus
> > Kracht, "On the Semantics of Locatives (2000)" describing
> > them as consisting of a configuration and a mode ...
>
> Hmm, a three-dimensional system of distinction is not too uncommon,
> the third dimension being touching vs. non-touching. I think this
> would split the 'modes', and ony locative, allative, ablative, and
> perlative would remain, making the 'approximative' mode a non-touching
> allative. I think I like this better from the engelang point of view,
> since it is more systematic.
I hadn't really planned on using 'touching' as a third dimension of
these, but it is a useful distinction. Since a:seka`eni is supposed to
be a "human" language, I didn't want to get too "engelangy." I'm worried
that my system is already too unnatural. I'll have to think more on how
to add a 'touching' aspect.
[snip Finnish stuff]
These aren't going to be 'cases' so much as particles used in an
isolating kind of way.
> >... The exception to this is in the above and below configurations,
> > which don't appear in the recessive mode, because they seemed to me
> > to be semantically identical to each other in the approximative mode
> > ...
>
> Hmm, I don't see why they are special:
>
> towards the above vs. away from the above
> vs. towards the below vs. away from the below
>
> I think this can all be distinguished. Using only ascending
> vs. descending seems to ignore the point of reference, i.e., you might
> be
> ascending from the earth (away from the above of the earth)
> vs. ascending towards the sky (away from the below of the sky).
OK, this makes sense. Yahya brought this up as well (quoted below.) I
shall look at reinstating them. Since I'm trying for a natlangy feel,
these senses may be able to be implied from context by using other
formations. More work needed...
> >...
> > It seems to me that the approximative and recessive (and
> > maybe transitory?) are kind of like a continuous aspect,
> > where the others are more like a perfective aspect.
> >...
>
> Ah, maybe, yes. Or touching/non-touching, but maybe that's only a
> matter of view (aspect vs. result view).
Hmm, I don't think the sense of touching will be created this way. For
example, in my system I use the configuration BESIDE to carry a
'touching' implication. Contrast that with NEAR which carries a 'to the
side of' feeling (for me, at least). What I may do is rethink the
configurations so that some of them carry the semantic sense of
touching. I may need to add a few more to accomplish this. Obviously,
this system is not done yet...
> >...
> > I've laid out all the possible combinations in the chart below. What
> > I need is for you to check my interpretation of the config + mode
> > combinations, especially for the approximative and recesisve
> > modes. Do they make sense? Are there any natlangs with systems that
> > work like this? I'm not too concerned if there aren't, but hopefully
> > the system is plausible, because it is supposed to be humanly
> > useable.
>
> Tabasaran is usually cited in this context, a Dagestan Caucasian
> language. It has 48 cases: 8 'configurations', 3 'modes' (at, to,
> from), and touching vs. non-touching (to vs. towards). I think John
> Quijada posted an overview recently. ...searches... It was about
> Lezgian, not Tabasaran, and the tables are here:
>
>
http://republika.pl/lezgi/paradigms.html> Hi James,
>
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, "James W." wrote:
[snip]
> > The exception to this is in the
> > above and below configurations, which don't appear in the
> > recessive mode, because they seemed to me to be semantically
> > identical to each other in the approximative mode (see the
> > chart below for clarification).
>
> I'm not sure they are; the sentence:
> "The rain fell from the heavens (above) onto the parched earth
> (below)."
> works in English, but in languages like yours, wouldn't you need to
> say instead:
> "The rain fell-from-above the heavens, [it] fell-onto-below the
> parched earth."
> or something similar, to capture the same meaning?
Yes, and in the perfective mode, this can be done with the
ABOVE-coinitial ("down from") and the BELOW-cofinal ("to below") or
ON-cofinal ("onto") combinations. I think in a natlangy setting, the
message conveyed is the same.
> [snip]
> > It seems to me that the approximative and recessive (and
> > maybe transitory?) are kind of like a continuous aspect,
> > where the others are more like a perfective aspect. So there
> > is a difference in meaning between, say, a cofinal and an
> > approximative construction with the same configuration.
>
> Again, I'm not sure that you can categorise them so. "into" has
> configuration IN, mode cofinal, according to your chart. But consider
> the
> sentence:
> "As he was walking into the house, he heard a terrifying scream."
> This "into" is continuous, surely? And it's unimportant whether he
> actually
> set foot in the house, got two steps inside, or was still two steps
> outside,
> when he heard the scream.
I'm not sure I see what you are trying to say. I said there *is* a
"difference in meaning between, say, a cofinal and an approximative
construction with the same configuration." Meaning that IN-cofinal and
IN-approximative are different. Your example brings up the possibility
of "walking into" which I surely have as the IN-approximative
combination ("entering"). I guess maybe I should have been more explicit
in stating that a:seka`eni is not supposed to be an engelang, so various
shades of meaning from the same construction can be implied from the
context of the statement.
> > I've laid out all the possible combinations in the chart
> > below.
[snip]
> I think it's a quite plausibly usable system, just going a little
further than does, say, Finnish.
Thanks for the vote of approval! :D
[snip]
> > There is one construction that I noticed I couldn't find in
> > the above combinations: around (encircling). So I have added
> > it as another configuration. However, I couldn't come up
> > with satisfactory modal shadings of it. So I challenge
> > everyone to see if you can come up with some :)
>
> How about:
> - AROUND
> - stative: circling
> - cofinal: gathering around
> - coinitial: dispersing in all directions (1)
> - transitory: passing all about
> - approximative: spreading around, encircling
> - recessive: from round about
>
> (1) "He rushed outside, jumped on his horse, and rode madly off in all
> directions." Who wrote that? ;-)
Ah, yes. Thanks for this! I shall give it due consideration.
> > Thanks for looking, and sorry about the length.
> None of it was wasted.
I'm glad.
> > ------------------------------
> >
> Larry Sulky replied:
> >
> > Interesting and useful, James. Others will have intelligent things to
> > add but I have two tiny remarks: Why no "to the side of" or "to the
> > left/right", given that "above", "below", "in front of", and "in back
> > of" are all represented? ...
>
> I think it already has "to the side of", but not to/from/at/towards/...
> "left" or "right", which do seem like rather natural possibilities.
OK, I don't have a left-right construction yet. And "to the side of" is
covered, I think, by the NEAR configuration.
> > ... And are temporals to be modeled as locatives
> > in this scheme? --larry
Good question, I haven't worked on them yet. Quite possibly, yes.
Yahya said:
> Complexity upon complexity! Piling Ossa upon Pelion! ... Ouch!!! I was
> just looking for a combination of configuration and "mode" that means
> "towards [being] on top of" - the best candidate seemed to me to be
> ABOVE,
> approximative - which you have meaning "ascending"; or ON, approximative,
> which you have meaning "arriving at". It seems to me that, for
> completeness, we'd want a "touching" vs "non-touching" "aspect" as well,
> to
> distinguish two kinds of "above". "Resting on top of" would be ABOVE,
> approximative, touching, whilst "high overhead" would be ABOVE,
> approximative, non-touching.
Yes. The touching issue is on my to-do-next list.
Thanks Larry, Henrik, Yahya (and Eldin, offlist) for your replies and
ideas.
--------
James W.
Reply