Print

Print


On 15 January 2011 18:07, Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Did you nick that from German? ;) Because German does something very
> similar. Dutch probably too, but I don't know the Dutch words.
>
>
Actually, Dutch doesn't. Instead, it has different lexemes, as English does.


>    zu = to, towards
>    sehen = to see
>    zusehen = to watch
>
>
NL: zien: to see (transitive), kijken: to watch (the complement is
introduced with naar: "to").


>    hören = to hear
>    zuhören = to listen
>
>
NL: horen: to hear (transitive), luisteren: to listen (the complement is
also introduced with naar).

The only similarity is that _kijken_ and _luisteren_ both have a complement
introduced by the preposition _naar_: to, towards.

A neat thing Dutch does, though, is to have alternatives to _kijken_ and
_luisteren_ that start with the prefix _be-_. With those verbs, this prefix
adds a slight sense of intensity or sustained action (but only slight:
_bekijken_ means something like "to examine", but it can also simply mean
"to look at" or "to watch". _Beluisteren_ means "to listen intently", but
also simply "to listen"). But most importantly, it makes those verbs
transitive (you say: "Ik kijk naar iets" but "Ik bekijk iets": I'm looking
at something).


> I find this quite neat actually.
>
>
In Moten, this distinction is actually handled by the case of the subject
rather than the form of the verb. _ipe|laj_, for instance, can mean both "to
see" and "to watch, to look at". What happens is that in Moten, all
transitive verbs can take a subject in the nominative case, or a subject
with the instrumental prefix _ko-_. The nominative case with transitive
verbs has a sense of volition, of activity (basically, of voluntary action),
while a subject introduced by the instrumental prefix indicates an
involuntary or passive action. With sensory verbs, this takes care of the
distinction between involuntary sensing ("to see") vs. voluntary sensing
("to watch").


> ObConlang: My conlang uses different cases with the different meanings, so:
>
>    tang- = to hear
>    tang- + PAT = to hear s.o./sth.
>    tang- + DAT¹ = to listen to s.o./sth.
>
> The same goes for other verbs of sensation.
>
> Carsten
>
> ¹) Someone pointed out recently why I didn't simply call the benefactive
> "dative", because that's how it works like. I didn't see a good reason
> against it, so I'm going with dative now, along with genitive and locative
> (and causative, and instrumentative).
>
>
Funny, I have something slightly similar in the way I describe Moten. Moten
has a prefix |la-, which is used to indicate the recipient (dative) or the
one who benefits from the action (benefactive, equivalent to "for"). Yet I
decided to call that prefix the benefactive prefix, rather than the dative
prefix, although it's probably used more often with a dative meaning than a
true benefactive meaning. The reason is that in Moten, this |la- prefix,
like other prefixes, is a peripheral expression, which is not considered to
be a core case. The core cases are the nominative, the accusative and the
genitive, and those are marked with a combination of an infix and a suffix.
The term "dative" looks like it should belong to the core cases, to which
|la- does not belong to. So in this case, I decided to stick to the name
"benefactive".
-- 
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/