# "'Normal' prepositions and others - in Dutch and ...



## ThomasK

In Dutch one has to use *a rare relative (de)welke after certain longer (...) prepositions *such as _zonder, tijdens_, etc. In my view that implies that they have a special status. 

Is there anyone who could comment on why they are different? Are they still analysed, and therefore lexical, rather  than purely functional? There might be something similar in German, but I am not sure. 

English also has _despite, notwithstanding_, etc., but I don't know whether they behave in a different way than the typical short prepositions.


----------



## CapnPrep

Some prepositions in Dutch don't accept _r_-pronoun complements (*_erzonder, *daarzonder, *waarzonder_). I don't think there is a single, deep reason for this, and there is no corresponding distinction in English.

You can find a list and some examples and remarks in the E-ANS (§8.7.1.3.3).


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for the information/ reference. That is precisely what I meant: _(de)welke _is needed, _er_ cannot be used. 

I do think there are older prepositions, often locative or directional, and the younger ones, such as _despite, notwithstanding_, ..., which seem to be 'more lexical', and sometimes contain another preposition: _be-cause of_, ... _Concerning _has formal aspects of a present participle but can be used in a broader sense, so it seems to me. _Despite _was copied from French_ en dépit de_, but dropped the of, probably because it was not analysed any longer, just copied. I just found they are called 'complex prepositions' if they consist of several parts.


----------



## CapnPrep

Of course you can divide prepositions into older vs. younger forms; longer vs. shorter forms; locative vs. non-locative ones; complex vs. simple structure; lexical vs. functional; native forms vs. borrowings; etc. There are clear correlations among these classifications, but they do not match up exactly, and most of the these distinctions are fuzzy/gradient and not strictly binary. _Er_ vs. _(de)welke_ is another criterion you can apply in Dutch. To some extent, you can predict whether a given preposition will allow _er_ based on its other properties, but in the end I think you just have to know this additional fact about each Dutch preposition.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, CP! Now funnily I come across an article on the grammaticalisation theory, which tries to explain the background of conjunctions, etc., and there I find something that might be applicable here: some phrases might not develop into outright prepositions, the same way as some conjunctions turn sentences into true subclauses or keep them in some status inbetween mainclause and subclause. 

I do agree that basically one has to learn the prepositions, but I am also interested in backgrounds, always hoping wishfully that it might prove useful in the short or the longer run... ;-)


----------



## ThomasK

Could it not be that the "average" preposition refers to place and time, and that newer ones miss some grammatical features typical of "average" prepositions.

I just thought of Finnish, which expresses direction and some other things with cases, I think. How they express the others (I think of _without, according to_, _against_, ...), I do not know, but not with cases. Doesn't that refer to some basic difference?

I don't know whether my hypothesis makes sense, but...


----------



## ThomasK

Even one and a half year later I keep wondering what the answer to the last question is: what "prepositional meanings" do cases express, and what cannot they? I cannot imagine a language expressing "behind" (or "after") by means of a case for example...


----------



## ThomasK

One year and a half later I happened to think of this question again, as I was reminded of it by a small problem cause by me not thinking of more complex prepositions.

My question now would be: what prepositions are expressed by cases in Finnish or other "case languages" and  what prepositions or something the like therefore remain necessary?


----------



## iezik

You can read the list of cases at wikipedia, e.g. for Hungarian.

Hungarian uses postpositions that are similar to prepositions, just placed after the words instead before the words. The Hungarian case markers are also after the unmarked words (in nominative), they're just written together. An example translations, good only as grammar drill, can be

in a house - házban
on a house - házon
behind a house - ház mögött
with a house - házzal
without a house - ház nélkül

We can see that the border between postpositions and cases is thin. If there were no space written between word and postposition, it would be even more similar.

There's no agreed number of cases in Hungarian language as some suffixes can be understood as both a case suffix and as word-forming suffix. In general, there are about 20 cases recognized.


----------



## ThomasK

Couldn't one say that these postpositions are really grammaticalized [cases] if the endings are variable according to gender or number or ... of words preceeding it? We have some postpositions like that too, without a space even, and we call them suffixes as they cannot be used separately such as _zekerheidshalve_/ (German) _Sicherheitshalber_ (to be sure, lit. for the sake of certainty/ security), but not cases.

But I had a look at your cases, and I suppose they are simply called/ considered cases. At least things like  "without" or "by reason of" are not in your list, or are they?

Doesn't the fact that "without"/ *nélkül* is apart point out that it has a special status, more like a real postposition? That is one of the very particular prepositions in Dutch that does not behave like the others...  (I'll try to check on Finnish somehow)


----------



## ThomasK

A student of mine informed me that "except" (_*kiséve*_, if I am not mistaken) has a real pre-positional status. That might confirm my hypothesis that some prepositions are more preposition-like [semantically] (like the cases in HUngarian)than others, such as 'without" or - even more so - "except"...


----------



## iezik

I forgotten to mention that in the list in #9, the words *mögott* and *nélkül* are postpositions, as writing apart also shows. The rest three lines represent cases. So, postpositions are used for everything except that about 20 cases. 

I'm not sure what you mean with _grammaticalized [cases]_.

Some postopisitions take the nominative nouns (alatt under, körül around etc), some postpositions take other cases (együtt together, közel near etc). Those taking nominative are thus more similar to cases.

I found "except" (kivéve) in some dictionaries as adverb, in other as preposition. Anyway it is placed before the noun to whict it relates. Given that Hungarian uses postpositions, if this word is considered adverb, it's similar to English "using" as in "using her head, she found a way forth", where "using" is not listed as preposition, but as -ing form still taking the object.


----------



## francisgranada

ThomasK said:


> A student of mine informed me that "except" (_*kiséve*_, if I am not mistaken) has a real pre-positional status. That might confirm my hypothesis that some prepositions are more preposition-like [semantically] ...


_*Kivéve *_is a participle, literally it means something like "being  taken out/off" (_except _is originally also a participle < Lat. _exceptus_). It seems to be  a "quasi" preposition only when viewed from the English (or some IE-like) point of view. Otherwise many frequent expressions that precede the noun could be considered prepositions (in many languages, including the English).

However, the analogy of your "normal" prepositions and the "problematic" ones (to say so) exist also in Hungarian, in my opinion: the case endings correspond to those "normal" prepositions while the postpositions correspond to the other group. The difference is that the (so called) case endings are more grammaticalized in the sense that they are behave as part of the noun itself: they change the thematic vowel according to vowel harmony (thus we have e.g. -_b*a*n _and -_b*e*n_), they don't bear the stress and, interestingly, they are monosyllabic, (etc.) On the other hand, the postpositions have only one form and they are typically bisyllabic, as they are derived (and mostly analysable) words, often _already _provided by a (so called) case ending.

In the Romance languages we also have different types of prepositions. E.g. in Spanish _delante de, enfrente de _etc ... are so called_ locuciones preposicionales_ while _de, a, sin, con, en, tras_ ... are simply _preposiciones_.  It's another question what is the origin/etymology of the "simple" prepositions from the point of view of Latin (or prae-Latin)...As to Hungarian, some actual case endings surely come from former postpositions, e.g.  -_ba/-be < *belé*_, _-ra/-re < *reá*._ This is not only a supposition or theory, but documented in ancient manuscripts.

Thus, when we are trying to categorise the prepositions/postpositions/case endings, it concerns only the actual "transient" stage of the given languages, not some absolute criteria which determine what can or cannot be/become semantically a preposition/postposition/case ending.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks a lot for this clarification. But then: could we not say that even "transient" stages might substantiate in some way that some prepositions or prepositional meanings are younger or older than others? Does it then carry us too far to say that that might prove that some prepositions are more basic?

Like "under": it is not marked by suffixes in Hungarian, is it? Could that mean that it is at least "not of the same nature" as "on", not so basic as "on"? Of course, I quite admit that "under" must be an important preposition, semantically speaking, as the antonym of "on", but is it a coincidence that it consists of two syllables?

_I might add that this hypothesis is based on an experience. Someone using an abbreviation in Dutch, "a/d", which I interpreted as "aan de" (something like 'to the') and had not even thought of the other preposition "achter" --- whereas that is in fact part of a common expression "achter de rug [zijn]" ([to be] behind us, lit. behind the back). I did not think of "achter" here because "a/d" is so common as "aan de", and none ever thinks of "achter" here..._ That is how I came to think of a distinction like "basic" and "other" prepositions and then looked for observations that might substantiate that claim.


----------



## iezik

francisgranada said:


> _*Kivéve *_is a participle, literally it means something like "being taken out/off" (_except _is originally also a participle < Lat. _exceptus_). It seems to be a "quasi" preposition only when viewed from the English (or some IE-like) point of view. Otherwise many frequent expressions that precede the noun could be considered prepositions (in many languages, including the English).


Usually, there are some words with the usage different from other words in the language and are hard to classify.

English, *ago*, denoting past time, always after the noun phrase: ten years ago
Italian, *fa*, denoting past time, always after the noun phrase: dieci anni fa
Hungarian, *kivéve*, denoting exception, usually before the noun phrase: on a traffic sign, kivéve above, a picture of veicule type below
German, *entlang*, meaning "along", before or after the noun phrase: die Strasse entlang

Quirk et al treat _ago_ as adverb. I read several pages, this is the only such adverb always requiring phrase before it.

Treccani treats _fa_ as verb form. The is the only verb in present that I recall with such a usage in Italian.

Kenesei et al treat _kivéve_ as postposition and show only postpositional usage. Google pictures show only usage before a noun.

Duden proclaims _entlang_ to be preposition and shows both its positions.

What remains is the question, how would I prefer to treat such words, to make computer connect them correctly with the surrounding words (when recognizing a text). These words are rather frequent in their languages, so a specific treatment of such words is helpful. Preposition (for English and Italian) and postposition (for Hungarian) are useful labels for many words as they show connection direction. The words with rarer connection type just need to be marked for such usage. I might not name such connction type. Or I might say that English and Italian have one postposition each and that Hungarian has one preposition. Naming is not that important.

Francis, can you show for _kivéve_ usage similarities or differences with other words that are similarly placed before the noun phrase?

In a similar way, Quirk et al specify 4 properties for English adjectives: can be a noun attribute, can be part of predicate, can be modified with very, have comparative and superlative form. They then continue to explain that core adjectives have all 4 properties and some adjective don't have all the properties.


----------



## ThomasK

Very interesting notes, thanks. I can see categorizing words can be quite hard.

"Connection direction": I think I understand, but is this a semantic name for a concept as such? You do seem to imply that prepositions/ postpositions do indeed refer to connection (&) direction, which is what I believe too. When that C/D is unclear, or more figurative, one  arrivés at some vagueness, I suppose - and I would not think the naming issue is the most important one, but even in that case the ambiguity must be between some existent categories, I think. I'd be inclined that some are prepositions in a strict sense, whereas others move away from them, maybe because of semantic reasons (those words not referring to the C/D base)...

_(I remember a discussion of the status of "so". To me it is clear that it is an adverb, yet in Dutch "dus" allows for combinations that are not typical of adv. (nor of conj., except for coordinate conj. perhaps...)_


----------



## OBrasilo

iezik said:
			
		

> Treccani treats _fa_ as verb form. The is the only verb in present that I recall with such a usage in Italian.


It's the 3rd person singular present indicative of _fare_ (to do). The same contruct it used in Spanish with _hace_ (of _hacer_ (to do)) and Portuguese with _faz_ (of _fazer_ (to do)) and _há_ (of _haver_ (to have)), except that Spanish and Portuguese put this before the noun phrase (_hace diez años_, _faz dez anos_/_há dez anos_. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## iezik

OBrasilo said:


> It's the 3rd person singular present indicative of _fare_ (to do). The same contruct it used in Spanish with _hace_ (of _hacer_ (to do)) and Portuguese with _faz_ (of _fazer_ (to do)) and _há_ (of _haver_ (to have))


I understand that Italian uses the verb only in the present tense, whereas Spanish and Portuguese use the verb in different tenses and the verb behaves rather like other verbs at such position. What is common is probably only the 3rd person singular.

(es) Ayer hizo un año.
(pt) Deve fazer alguns meses que eles não se falam.
(it) Dodici anni fa moriva in servizio il sovrintendente Marino Pomentale


----------

