What do you lexicalise in your motion verbs?

Museum for the best conlanging and conworldery threads. Ask mods to move threads here.
User avatar
Ser
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: What do you lexicalise in your motion verbs?

Post by Ser »

Jetboy wrote:Do languages which tend to lexicalize path also tend to have verbs like "be in" or "be under" instead of ones like "sit" or "stand"?
Could you elaborate on that? I don't understand your question as you worded it...

Do you mean, if they have static verbs with location lexicalized? ("to be under", "to be on top", etc.)
Last edited by Ser on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jetboy
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:49 pm

Re: What do you lexicalise in your motion verbs?

Post by Jetboy »

Renaçido wrote: Do you mean, if they have static verbs with location lexicalized? ("to be under", "to be on top", etc.)
Yeah, I think that's what I mean. So instead of lexicalizing the body position (the "manner" in which one occupies a space), like sitting, standing, kneeling, etc., do languages that lexicalize path tend to have verbs like being in, being above, being next to, etc.? So, for example, instead of saying something like "the bottle lay in the cave", would those languages say something closer to "the bottle was in the cave lying"?
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
–Herm Albright
Even better than a proto-conlang, it's the *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s

User avatar
Ser
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

Re: What do you lexicalise in your motion verbs?

Post by Ser »

French/Spanish and Arabic don't at least, but who knows if others do...

Post Reply