169958Re: Adverbial verbs(like stative verbs)?
- Feb 2 12:46 AMDouglas Koller wrote:
> ----- "R A Brown" <ray@...> wrote:[snip]
>I know - just like in English in fact :)
>> 'Tomorrow' may, of course, be used as a noun, so
>> presumably this can have some noun flexion. But 'there'
>> ("adverb of place") and 'then' ("adverb of time") seem
>> to me a little trickier.
> In Chinese, "tomorrow" is a noun and no inflection is
> required (Tomorrow is the day after the first day of the
> rest of your life.) (I'll go there tomorrow.).
But in the sentence "I'll go there tomorrow", "tomorrow" is
traditionally analyzed as an _adverb_ of time. Our English
teacher used to drum into us the maxim "By their deeds shall
ye know them" when it came to English grammar; i.e. it was
no use looking for inflexions as in, say, Latin - one had to
look at the _function_ of a word within the sentence. The
same, of course, applies to Chinese.
If I understood Vincent, he wants to scrap the category
'adverb'. And why not, indeed? It may be that in his conlang
the noun for "tomorrow" can function in similar manner to
English & Chinese without marked inflexion; that's why I
wrote _can_ have some noun flexion. He may well not have any
flexion, but use syntax instead.
>Yep - that one possibility. I was thinking - though I didn't
>> When I saw Philip's 'there', my immediate response was
>> "[in] that place." Then I thought "Hey, how's Vincent
>> going to express 'that'? It's adjectival, but a stative
>> verb doesn't seem appropriate."
> Vincent didn't say compound nouns were out of bounds, so
> why not just let it be a (pro)noun: "He doesn't like
> that." That way, "that place" and "that time" are
> compound nouns like "firehouse".
write it - of having the (pro)noun "that" and the other noun
in apposition. This, it seems to me, is what happened in
ancient Greek. If a noun was definite,any descriptive
adjective or, indeed, adjectival phrase, had to be preceded
by the definite article, thus:
ARTICLE ADJECTIVE NOUN _or_
ARTICLE NOUN ARTICLE ADJECTIVE
Demonstratives were _never_ used like that; we always find
DEMONSTRATIVE ARTICLE NOUN _or_
ARTICLE NOUN DEMONSTRATIVE
Where the demonstrative is in apposition with the
>Yep - or you could use a verb like the Chinese _zai4_ "to be
> As for "*in* that place", (back to Chinese), make "in" a
> noun: that place('s) inside. "zhuo1zi shang4", "on the
> table" is "(the) table('s) 'on-top-of-ness'", so you can
> get things like:
[in/at etc]" - "being-in that+place"
There are several possibilities.
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>