Zompist Bboard Again

For conlang purposes, but mostly a natlang question, so here goes:

How unusual would it be to let words like "sit" take a regular object instead of a preposition phrase? So instead of "I sat on the chair", you just say "I sat the chair". Another example off the top of my head would be "I walk the streets", which come to think of it would be fine in English. Weird? Normal? Other examples?

Would need to check transitivity issues... e.g. "I sat the chair" could be you placing dollhouse furniture .... but streets don't move so that one is always clear.

Chuma wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:34 pmHow unusual would it be to let words like "sit" take a regular object instead of a preposition phrase? So instead of "I sat on the chair", you just say "I sat the chair". Another example off the top of my head would be "I walk the streets", which come to think of it would be fine in English. Weird? Normal? Other examples?

Are you basically talking about a zero-derivation applicative?

Well I mean, "sit" in English wouldn't work, since it can also be used as Pabappa mentioned. But that's just how some similar words happen to work in English, that "to X" used transitively actually means "to make something X". Generally, would it make sense to have for example a word meaning "to sit" but whose transitive meaning is "to sit on/in/etc?

One more example: The word "live, dwell, inhabit" which is conspicuously missing in English but found in German (wohnen) and Scandinavian (bo), also takes a preposition phrase, "she lives in that house". But it's never used transitively, so we might as well say "she lives that house". Would that be weird? Is it a general rule to use prepositions whenever possible, so to speak?

Zero-derivation applicatives are indeed what you're looking for. They're not abnormal.

Chuma wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:38 am One more example: The word "live, dwell, inhabit" which is conspicuously missing in English but found in German (wohnen) and Scandinavian (bo), also takes a preposition phrase, "she lives in that house". But it's never used transitively, so we might as well say "she lives that house". Would that be weird? Is it a general rule to use prepositions whenever possible, so to speak?

For 'live', the object role is taken by the cognate accusative - one lives a life. Now, 'inhabit' already is a transitive verb.

Indeed it is, but this is not the case for the word I was talking about. As far as I can tell, English never had that particular word, even though its relatives do, and even though it has both the adjective form and the noun form ("bond", in the sense "tenant farmer; serf; head of household").

Chuma wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:00 pmIndeed it is, but this is not the case for the word I was talking about. As far as I can tell, English never had that particular word, even though its relatives do, and even though it has both the adjective form and the noun form ("bond", in the sense "tenant farmer; serf; head of household").

"Bond" is unrelated to the Scandinavian "bo". German "wohnen" has a cognate in English, wone, of which the OED mentions transitive uses, for example: Grendles modor [‥.] se þe wætereġesan wunian scolde, cealde streamas (Beowulf: Grendel's mother ..., who would wone waterterrors and cold streams), The toure wherein she lay enclos'd, / Was with her damsels onely wond and mee. (Edward Fairfax's translation of Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered, passive voice: The tower, in which she lay enclosed, was woned by her damsels and me alone).

Regarding the topic of this thread, I'm sure many languages that have zero-derivation applicatives will allow 'sit' or 'live' + a place as a direct object. Classical Chinese 坐 'sit' is normally followed by 於, the general preposition of location or movement towards sth, but on rare occasions it is used as a zero-derived applicative:

虛坐盡後，食坐盡前。
be.empty, sit extreme back, eat, sit extreme front
'When [a student] is doing nothing, he should sit at the very back, and when eating, he should sit at the very front.' (禮記 Lǐjì ("Classic of Rites"), chapter 曲禮上 Qū Lǐ shàng ("Summarized Rites part 1"), section 31.)

(I came across ~30 attestations of the verb followed by the preposition 於 while trying to look for an example of this!)

Apparently I was wrong to assume that wohnen and bo are related, despite the similarities. Interesting! A wider search also reveals that both have English parallels, or at least used to. Maybe I should start using "to bue"? It is after all the queen's English, even if it happens to be queen Ealhswith.

I do however stand by my previous statement that "bond" in that less common sense is related to bo, even though the more common sense isn't.

Thanks for the Chinese examples as well!

Ser wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:33 am Zero-derivation applicatives are indeed what you're looking for. They're not abnormal.

I suppose a more interesting question is: are there any languages with transitive sit as Chuma asks, but which don’t use zero-derivation applicatives?

Ser wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:08 pm "Bond" is unrelated to the Scandinavian "bo".

Common opinion is that it is, in the claimed senses, though I'm not sure what the evidence is for rejecting the connection with bind. The connection of the word husband with the Scandinavian word looks pretty convincing. The word is reported to be borrowed from 'Old Norse' rather than a common inheritance.

Well, in English, the one exception to the general rule I can think of is the Jewish expression "to sit shiva".

In German, in addition to wohnen, which is generally used with "in", there's also bewohnen, which is always used without "in", though it sounds kind of stilted and usually wouldn't be used in everyday speech these days.

Not sit, but in Japanese you can say:

天上を歩く
tenjō wo aruku
ceiling OBJ walk

...to mean "walk on the ceiling". I don't know any other verbs that function in this way though.