Print

Print


Amanda Babcock writes:
 > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Tim May wrote:
 >
 > > And what's "In common life,
 > > the object has often the form of the dative, ***, to facilitate the
 > > comprehension." supposed to mean?
 >
 > Hmm.  Well, presumably the little stars here encode a different representation
 > than the other little stars earlier where he demonstrated the objective or
 > "Nominative same as Accusative" case.  And he's saying that in common
 > speech, instead of objective, we get this other case which he labels (but
 > I can hardly trust him :) Dative.
 >
 > We can only figure this out by comparing with a modern source.  From
 > http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/papers/caseframes.html:
 >
 > "A problem in Tibetan grammar which has captured the interest of
 > Tibetan grammarians for the last millenium is the fact that some
 > transitive verbs take an unmarked object, while others require
 > locative marking on the object."
 >
 > But would even our confused missionary have mistaken locative for dative?
 >
 > If you figure out the script, the locative case marking DeLancey shows
 > in his examples is "la".  If that turns out not to be the thing your book
 > calls "dative", then I stumbled across the wrong phenomenon.
 >

Ah, yes, I think this is what he's referring to.  I've read most of
what DeLancey has online - it's one of the reason's I'm interested in
the language* - and I think he does mention that this case is
sometimes called locative/dative. I don't know what Jäschke's original
readers made of it, though.

(The little stars are indeed different - I can't read Tibetan script
(as yet, anyway) and it's tricky to romanize even if I work it out.  I
think those three are khyo-da.-la., possibly pronounced khyod-la, but I
haven't read the whole section on the script & phonology.)

Ah, here's his description of the dative:

|4.  The Dative adds indiscriminately the postposition * _la_,
|denoting the relation of space in the widest sense, expressed by the
|English prepositions _in_, _into_, _at_, _on_, _to_.

which certainly looks like DeLancey's locative.  Jäschke might have
called it that himself, except that he's given that name to another
case

|5.  The Locative is formed by the postposition * _na_, `in'.

* If it happens that you've been following this thread from it's
  inception, you already know this, of course, but it's long been
  snipped from this message.