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.