Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

169958Re: Adverbial verbs(like stative verbs)?

Expand Messages
  • R A Brown
    Feb 2 12:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Douglas Koller wrote:
      > ----- "R A Brown" <ray@...> wrote:
      [snip]
      >
      >> '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.).

      I know - just like in English in fact :)

      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.

      [snip]
      >
      >> 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".

      Yep - that one possibility. I was thinking - though I didn't
      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
      either:
      DEMONSTRATIVE ARTICLE NOUN _or_
      ARTICLE NOUN DEMONSTRATIVE
      Where the demonstrative is in apposition with the
      article+noun phrase.

      [snip]
      >
      > 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:

      Yep - or you could use a verb like the Chinese _zai4_ "to be
      [in/at etc]" - "being-in that+place"

      There are several possibilities.

      --
      Ray
      ==================================
      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
      ==================================
      Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
      There's none too old to learn.
      [WELSH PROVERB]
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic