[Back] [En español]
12 October 2000
Introduction
This text is proposal about prepositions for Vorlin language, by Rick Harrison, that you can find here.
My preposition system is not the proposed by Rick Harrison, it bases upon another concept. Although I have created some vocabulary, it's arbitrary (but I've finished the words with u like standard Vorlin), the important matter are the concepts, specially my point of view of the the polysemy
In his grammar, Rick Harrison says "Prepositions have a relatively high degree of polysemy and idiomatic usage in most natural languages", in order to face this fact Rick Harrison prupose "Deriving prepositions from well-defined nouns is expected to protect Vorlin's prepositions from acquiring multiple disparate meanings".
This solution allows a great precision in the propositions, but it may make the language more complex.
More ambiguity in expression: Easier to write, more difficult to understand.
More precision in expression: Easier to understand, more difficult to write.
I think that we must find a middle point, if the polysemy and idiomatic usage is so widely spared there must be some reason, instead of fighting against it we should adopt it with order and coherence. Although there always must be non-polysemyc choice.
Perhaps the origin of polysemy is in the fact that there are a lot relationships between words, instead of creating a word for each one, we re-use a short number of prepositions. This is possible because there are a short number of relationships between words in a particular sentence due its context and semantic, and one of them is the obvious, or at least the most usual one.
The murderer killed the man with a knife
I think that there is none that understand that the murderer had a knife in one hand and shot the man with a gun in the other hand. We can write it better.
The murderer killed the man using a knife
The murderer killed the man by means of a knife
But I think that its not a good idea a language that allows only the second choice.
In short, my proposal is: For the most common relations let's use generic and 'multi-use' propositions, assuming that the context will complete the meaning. But without renouncing to more suitable alternatives if you want to less ambiguous.
The changes on Vorlin are not so deep:
A little of polysemy in the more common relationships
Some space/time propositions
Most of languages have some prepositions that can be used as time prepositions or as space prepositions (before, after, until, etc), because, in some maner, time is "a space with just one dimension", I will do something like that
Static ones
A) We refer a site respect a reference point, in this sense the preposition only may indicate that the site is in the reference point, or different degrees of proximity.
In the reference point (at) : tu
The paper is on the table, reference point: the table
The boy plays in the garden, r.p.: the garden
The present is in the box, r.p.: the box
The paper is tu the table, reference point: the table
The boy plays tu the garden, r.p.: the garden
The present is tu the box, r.p.: the box
The precision "on the table", "in the box" are unnecessary, boxes are made to have things inside and tables are made to have things on, and these are the usual usage of those words. If we want to say that the box is closed and the present in on it, we can use the word on, and if we want to be retoric we can use inside.
This preposition should be used widely to express any static reference to a site:
He is wating the bus at the bus stop
He is wating the bus tu the bus stop
The bird flies in the cage
The bird flies tu the cage
The bird is on the tree
The bird in tu the tree
B)Proximity
Following the demonstrative criteria, there are three degrees of proximity
Exactly in the site: cantu
close: cintu
far: cuntu
The most usual usage should be cintu, that means not exactly in the reference point
The man was walking by the river.
The man was walking cintu the river.
The restaurant is near the city.
The restaurant is cintu the city.
C) From the observer point of view
From the observer point of view, the site can be before or after the reference point
Before: The site we mean is between the observer and the reference point
After: The the reference point is between the observer and the site.
Before: bu
After: fu
The river is after the hill.
The river is fu the hill.
This prepositions can be used with can, cin and cun to express more or less proximity from the reference point (not from the observer)
The Moon is before Jupiter
The Moon is cunbu Jupiter
D) From the point of view of the reference point
This prepositions suppose that the reference point has dimensions and orientation in the space.
In front of: fondu
behind: dondu
up: kundu
Down: bundu
On the left: candu
On the right: handu
On one side: landu(no matter the left or the right)
inside: nindu
outside: dindu
The dog is in one side of the house
The dog is landu of the house
The book is under the table
The book is bundu the table
You can use can, cin and cun like in tu.
The helicopter was flying under the plane. (almost crash)
The helicopter was flying can bundu the plane.
The plane was flying above the birds.
The plane was flying cun kundu the birds.
Movement
Origin, source: desu
Destiny, target: tosu
Through: secu
He goes from England to Italy
He goes desu England tosu Italy
Time prepositions
Space prepositions may be used also as time prepositions, and there is seldom confusion, because time prepositions precede words meaning time or an event.
see you at three o'clock
see you tu three o'clock
see you before the movie
see you bu the movie
we will talk during the lunch
we will talk secu the lunch
I lived here since 1980 until 1985
I lived here desu 1980 tosu 1985
I came here in 1980
I came here tu 1980
I lived here in 1980 for three months
I lived here tu 1980 secu three months
Combinations
Perhaps these prepositions could be used to create more complex concepts, v.g.r:
tosu-tu or tostu: until
desu-tu or destu: since,from
bu-fu: between
The difference between tosu and tostu or desu and destu is subtle, they should be used when you want to emphasize that it is the starting or the final point.
We are traveling from London to Rome, tonight we will go until Paris
We are traveling desu London tosu Rome, tonight we will go
tosu-tu Paris
Time/space Ambiguity
In the case where there is ambiguity if the preposition means time or space we can use the sufixes lok for space and tem for time
We haven't talked since Paris (since we were in Paris)
We haven't talked destemu Paris
Time/space adverbs
I don't know how they are named in other grammars, but as far as I know they are known as time and space adverbs. Perhaps it will be better call them generic nouns of times and places. There are three levels, as in demonstratives.
tanlok: Here, close to the speker and the listener (in this place)
tinlok: There, close to the listener, far from the speaker (in that place)
tunlok: ¿?, far from both, the speaker and the listener.
Its time analogy has only two levels, due the speaker and the listener are always in the same time (as far as we don't have a time machine)
tantem: now
tintem: then
There are another "time nouns" like yesterday, recently etc
All these "place/time nouns" don't need tha preposition tu
E-mail:Santiago
Amposta
[Back] [En español]