Print

Print


The below post made me think of an ancient thread (which I'm to lazy to dig up
in the archives) about whether _-ward(s)_ could be seen as an allative ending.
The consensus was, IIRC, that it wasn't, because the suffix is restricted to a
few lexemes.

However, the other day I saw a text by Joseph Conrad, in which he used the
form "Congoward", obviously meaning "towards the Congo". This can't be seen as
much else than an allative, can it?

(As usual, I cannot give the reference - standard apologies regarding books
being in Sweden and my internet access here restricted.)

                                                         Andreas

Quoting Costentin Cornomorus <[log in to unmask]>:

> --- Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain to me why all of those sound
> > awkward to me without
> > an |s| at the end of |toward|?  i.e.,
> > "towards"?
>
> We had this discussion a while back. Personally,
> I think of pairs like toward/towards as a
> motionless/moving distinction.
>
> "Toward a Fuller Understand of Aspect in Yllemese
> Court Sculpture" makes a fine title for a paper;
> but it is now static. While the author and anyone
> else who is studying Yllemes court sculpture, is
> actively moving towards that goal of a fuller
> understanding.
>
> So, toward indicates the notion of moving to;
> while towards indicates the actual motion. In my
> opinion and usage.
>
> Same goes for certain other adverbs in -s, like
> leftward/leftwards. "A leftward move was noted in
> the recent elections" v. "In general, we're
> moving leftwards in our political choices".
>
> Padraic.
>
>
> =====
> - Nos c˘sez yen fin xristianˇs et trancouil
>
> - C˘sez-el a Ddon!
>
> --
>
> Ill Bethisad --
> <http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>
>
>
> Come visit The World! --
> <http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>