Zompist Bboard Again

What exactly is the difference between an adverbial phrase and a prepositional phrase? All examples of adverbial phrases I can find are also prepositional phrases. I suspect that this is just another instance of traditional grammar conflating different terms (like tense/aspect), but I’d like to get a more definitive answer on this.

An adverbial phrase is defined functionally, as a phrase that functions like an adverb.
This can be e.g. an adverb on its own ("afterwards"), a non-finite verb form ("leaving"), a non-finite verb phrase ("having left the house"), a prepositional phrase ("after leaving the house"), or even a full subclause ("after she had left the house") [if you accept that this counts as a 'phrase'].

A prepositional phrase is defined formally, as a phrase that is headed by a preposition.
This can be used adverbially ("after leaving the house, she started dancing in the snow") [both prepositional phrases in this example describe the circumstances of the action], or it can be used adnominally ("the hour after midnight"; "the footprints in the snow") [in both of these examples, the prepositional phrase describes a noun].

So there is a large overlap between adverbial phrases and prepositional phrases, but the two terms do not mean exactly the same thing.

Cedh wrote an excellent a reply. I just want to add that you can also have adverbial clauses with a bare finite verbal phrase: were she to keep digging, she would've found dirt on her mother-in-law. Very often such things involve a subjunctive of some sort.

Standard Arabic also allows adverbials with a bare finite verbal form (and such a verb is in the indicative mood even!), so you can literally say things like they-exited the-building they-sing 'they sang as they went out of the building' (notice the clash in tense between "they-exited" and "they-sing" too, but you can do this with present-tense sentences too).

Cedh gave an example of an adverbial subclause using "after", a word that is both a preposition and a subordinating conjunction. You can also have adverbial subclauses with subordinators that can't be used as prepositions: if you dance, unless you dance, when you dance, whatever you dance, so that you dance. Standard Arabic also allows adverbial clauses with the conjunction "and", so you can literally say things like they-exited the-building and they they-sing 'they sang as they went out of the building'.

In a serial verb construction that expresses a sequence of events carried out by the same subject, the various verbal phrases around the main verbal phrase are basically adverbial phrases.

tā gēn yí ge shūshu dào gōngyuán qù yěcān yóuwán
3S follow one CL uncle go.towards park go field-eat have.fun
lit., "s/he accompanied by an uncle heading to the park goes to eat-in-field to have fun" (<- four adverbials)
'She and an uncle of hers went to the park to have a picnic.'
(CL = classifier. Mandarin speakers have a habit of adding "in order to enjoy, have fun" at the end of pleasant events that sounds unidiomatic in English.)


(And before akam chinjir inevitably attacks me :D , yes, I'm using "serial verb construction" in the broader sense, so I'm including verbal phrases that aren't so syntactically tight. Some of these verbal phrases could be replaced by full-blown subclauses with a different subject.)

Thanks cedh and Ser! It’s all a lot clearer now. So to summarise, an adverbial phrase can be any of:

• A single word (e.g. a standalone adverb or a nonfinite verb)
• A phrase headed by a preposition
• A clause headed by a subordinating conjunction
• A verbal form (e.g. as in Arabic)
• Anything else which makes sense (e.g. I was reading that Bororo has a special type of standalone adverbial dependent clause)

Additionally, although prepositions and subordinators often overlap, this does not always occur (e.g. in is an adverb only, when is a subordinator only).

Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase?

Also, a question on demonstratives: Wikipedia classifies English demonstratives into three word types, to which I will add a fourth:

1. Demonstrative determiners (e.g. this apple is good)
2. Demonstrative adverbs (e.g. I saw it here)
3. Demonstrative pronouns (e.g. this is good)
4. Demonstrative locative pronouns (my own category; e.g. here is good)

As indicated by the examples, English merges (1) and (3), as well as (2) and (4). Are there any languages which merge or separate other combinations of these?

(Sorry for asking so many questions here recently; I’ve been trying to figure out some of the details of the syntax of my new conlang, but I’ve never really understood these areas in detail — hence the questions.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:46 am Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase?

Languages that don't use adpositions much but, instead, use cases, applicatives, or pseudo-serial-verb-constructions?

More seriously, I imagine there are languages that basically rely on word order only, like English "I gave my brother a gift", but more pervasively.

Also, a question on demonstratives: Wikipedia classifies English demonstratives into three word types, to which I will add a fourth:

1. Demonstrative determiners (e.g. this apple is good)
2. Demonstrative adverbs (e.g. I saw it here)
3. Demonstrative pronouns (e.g. this is good)
4. Demonstrative locative pronouns (my own category; e.g. here is good)

As indicated by the examples, English merges (1) and (3), as well as (2) and (4). Are there any languages which merge or separate other combinations of these?

I think I understand what you mean by #2 vs. #4, but I'd say both are "adverbs" used in a "locative pronoun" way (proadverbials is the word I guess). They're just different uses (deictic #2 vs. anaphoric #4). I'd say that deictic "this" in a sentence like I only want this is still a pronoun, even if it's the first time I show the thing to the listener.

Anyway, yes, Mandarin 這 zhè, the proximal demonstrative, can be used in all the ways you list. It probably helps that in Mandarin you don't typically say a bare "here", but rather say something we could render literally as "(being.)in here". In languages with case, maybe you'd see "this.LOC" in the locative case or the like. Also note that in Mandarin it's used as an adverbial meaning 'here' a lot less commonly; most of the time it just means 'this X' or 'this'. The adverbial use is replaced by 這裡 zhèlǐ and 這兒 zhèr most of the time.

Ser wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:39 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:46 am Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase?

Languages that don't use adpositions much but, instead, use cases, applicatives, or pseudo-serial-verb-constructions?

More seriously, I imagine there are languages that basically rely on word order only, like English "I gave my brother a gift", but more pervasively.

Yes, I understand that this is how such a language would work. I’m mainly interested to know if there are any natlangs which actually do this.

Also, a question on demonstratives: Wikipedia classifies English demonstratives into three word types, to which I will add a fourth:

1. Demonstrative determiners (e.g. this apple is good)
2. Demonstrative adverbs (e.g. I saw it here)
3. Demonstrative pronouns (e.g. this is good)
4. Demonstrative locative pronouns (my own category; e.g. here is good)

As indicated by the examples, English merges (1) and (3), as well as (2) and (4). Are there any languages which merge or separate other combinations of these?

I think I understand what you mean by #2 vs. #4, but I'd say both are "adverbs" used in a "locative pronoun" way (proadverbials is the word I guess).

What I mean by each of the word types is:

1. Demonstrative referring to a location, modifying a noun
2. Demonstrative referring to a location, modifying a sentence
3. Demonstrative referring to an object through deixis, as a noun
4. Demonstrative referring to a location through deixis, as a noun

I’m wondering which of these are generally merged, which of these are generally separated, and what variations occur.

They're just different uses (deictic #2 vs. anaphoric #4). I'd say that deictic "this" in a sentence like I only want this is still a pronoun, even if it's the first time I show the thing to the listener.

What exactly is the difference between deixis and anaphora? I thought they were pretty much the same.

Anyway, yes, Mandarin 這 zhè, the proximal demonstrative, can be used in all the ways you list. It probably helps that in Mandarin you don't typically say a bare "here", but rather say something we could render literally as "(being.)in here". In languages with case, maybe you'd see "this.LOC" in the locative case or the like. Also note that in Mandarin it's used as an adverbial meaning 'here' a lot less commonly; most of the time it just means 'this X' or 'this'. The adverbial use is replaced by 這裡 zhèlǐ and 這兒 zhèr most of the time.

So Mandarin can merge all categories into a single word, but doesn’t typically use that word for (2) and (4). So in effect, typical usage is similar to English.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category ... ation_hubs could be a good starting point if anyone wants to make words in their conlang that have no single-word English equivalent.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:35 pmYes, I understand that this is how such a language would work. I’m mainly interested to know if there are any natlangs which actually do this.

Jamaican, for one, at least in the more basilectal registers, and probably other CECs as well.


JAL

How can a common singular nominal suffix arise? Such as the Latin -us, for example?

Knit Tie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:38 pm How can a common singular nominal suffix arise? Such as the Latin -us, for example?

Well, Latin -us is just the regular nominative -s for "thematic nouns," i.e. nouns with an o (or in this case u) tacked on. Thematic nouns and verbs don't always have a specific and consistent purpose; lots of IE languages switched roots from athematic to thematic for no discernible reason. As for the nominative ending -s, that's pretty much primordial as far as the linguistic consensus on PIE goes. There are some theories about how some case and person suffixes may be evidence of earlier ergativity, but AFAIK those theories still don't explain how -s arose from whatever came before, like maybe -0. Non-zero nominative markers in "Altaic" languages are similarly basic, as are the topic markers in Korean and Japanese. So I guess the lesson is that you can assign case endings without a specific historical origin if you want to.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:46 am Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase?

I have nothing to say about serial verbs Here I'll add a footnote to Ser, a pattern I particularly like, the direct object goes before the verb, an indirect object after, with no other marking.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:46 am Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase

You might want to read about secundative languages.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:23 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:46 am Are there any languages in which indirect objects can be expressed without using an adpositional phrase? Are there any languages in which indirect objects rarely or never use an adpositional phrase

You might want to read about secundative languages.

I didn’t know the term secundative, but I am aware of this. WALS has a particularly nice section on this area, which I have found to be very useful.

Now that I think about this, I suppose my original question was very vague. I’ll rephrase it in a manner which makes it better: Are there any languages which do not make extensive use of adpositions to mark indirect objects, instead preferring to use morphology or word order to achieve this?

Galactic Standard's a object-prominent language that may have a topic-comment structure as well. Thus, the objective/instrumental case is unmarked. Does it still need an object-marking particle?

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:01 am Galactic Standard's a object-prominent language that may have a topic-comment structure as well. Thus, the objective/instrumental case is unmarked. Does it still need an object-marking particle?

I don’t know what an object-prominent language is, and a quick search doesn’t turn up anything obvious, but I would guess that a particle isn’t needed.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:30 amNow that I think about this, I suppose my original question was very vague. I’ll rephrase it in a manner which makes it better: Are there any languages which do not make extensive use of adpositions to mark indirect objects, instead preferring to use morphology or word order to achieve this?

Presumably the many languages with a dative case, then.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:24 am

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:01 am Galactic Standard's a object-prominent language that may have a topic-comment structure as well. Thus, the objective/instrumental case is unmarked. Does it still need an object-marking particle?

I don’t know what an object-prominent language is, and a quick search doesn’t turn up anything obvious, but I would guess that a particle isn’t needed.

Basically, it'll sound very similar to Japanese, which is topic-comment, but with an object (sword, etc.) being the preferred sentence-starter, even if its an object rather than the topic. I guess object-comment would've been a better description for its preferred structure than object-prominent, which is much more ambiguous.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:33 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:30 amNow that I think about this, I suppose my original question was very vague. I’ll rephrase it in a manner which makes it better: Are there any languages which do not make extensive use of adpositions to mark indirect objects, instead preferring to use morphology or word order to achieve this?

Presumably the many languages with a dative case, then.

Thanks! I wasn’t quite sure whether languages with the dative (or similar cases) still used prepositions, which was why I asked.

Knit Tie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:38 pm How can a common singular nominal suffix arise? Such as the Latin -us, for example?

Like this, I suspect:

"A common singular nominal suffix, how can it arise?"

At least, I've come across natives speaking English like that.

That even fits the PIE case, where *so was an animate nominative/accusative demonstrative stem.