Re: Locative constructions in a:seka`eni (long)
|From:||James W. <emindahken@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, August 10, 2006, 2:50|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:25:38 -0400, "Roger Mills" <rfmilly@...> said:
> James W. wrote:
> > > > I'm currently working on the locative constructions in
> > > > a:seka`eni. ...
> > > > 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 ...
> I haven't read the paper yet, but it's a very interesting system, and you
> presented it well.
Thanks. Definitely still needs work, though.
> In addition to oddities/questions raised by others, my immediate thought
> How to distinguish "general" location from "specific"? i.e.
> a. John is in New York.
> b. John is in the bathroom.
> c.The meat is in the pot -- b and c I guess would be "inside" wouldn't
Very good question. These English examples all do rather well using
the same word. Right now a:seka`eni only has one form for the sense
of "in" as well. However, after reading the on- and off-list responses
that may change, esp. regarding the 'touch' dimension. Tom Chappell
mentioned (offlist) that some languages have four degrees of 'touch':
If I were to adopt some or all of these, then I think from your examples
above that a. and b. could be 'in' + proximity; and c. could be 'in' +
> And how about "from a high location to an even higher one?" -- a bird
> out of a tree for ex.
Hmm. Well, I don't have qualitatives (term?--high, low, middle, etc.) or
comparatives yet. As for flying out of a tree, that would be done with
coinitial ('out of').
> IIRC I had problems in Kash with some of these, such as beside/next to
All of the feedback that I have received has shown me the problems, or
omissions, rather, from my system--for which I am grateful. :)) The more
I think about this approach to locatives, the more I like it. It just
some refinement. Don't know when I'll be able to focus on it though...
Hopefully in the next week.