# locative for present actions



## themadprogramer

Hello, I think the title is fairly descriptive but let me be a bit more clear.

Are any of you aware of any language(s) where:
*present tense verb* can be replaced as: *(locative prefix+*) *infinitive verb (+ locative suffix*)

Two languages where I know this can be done are Chinese, and my native language Turkish.

In Chinese it goes as follows:
我    作   着        ->  我   在   作
wo zuo zhe        ->  wo  zai  zuo
I (am) doing      -> I (am) at doing

And in Turkish:
Yapıyorum -> Yapmaktayım.
(I am) doing -> (I am at) doing

As you can see this seems quite bizarre when you think of it in English  But somehow it works. I understand that they're not *exactly *the same but they are remarkably similar in terms of meaning.


----------



## animelover

How about the German absentive?

Ich bin am einkaufen. / Ich bin beim einkaufen. / Ich bin einkaufen.
I am shopping.

'am', literally at (the)
beim, literally near (the)

Er ist (gerade) beim essen.
He is (currently) eating.

Der's am abkratzen.
He's kicking the bucket.


----------



## ger4

Colloquial German has similar forms - as animelover pointed out - but unfortunately they are not really accepted in the standard/written language. They are a very helpful tool in the spoken language, though, as German doesn't have any other verb form expressing the concept of "continuous/ ongoing action"

By contrast, French and Danish have similar forms, not just in the colloquial language but in the written standard as well.

Danish:
Jeg er ved at lave mad [I  am at to do/prepare meal] I'm cooking
Han er ved at læse en bog [he is at to read a book] He's reading a book
Hun er ved at skrive et brev [she is at to write a letter] She's writing a letter


----------



## AutumnOwl

The Finnish language have four (or five) infinitives and six locative cases, perhaps the third infinitive, corresponding to the English "verb + ing" form is what you are looking for, you can read more about the Finnish grammar here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar


----------



## Gavril

In Finnish, it is possible to indicate an action in progress using the locative case form of a verbal noun:

_Olen ostamassa autoa_ "I am buying a car"

Here, _ostamassa_ literally means "in buying".

However, the simple present tense is the most common way (at least in standard Finnish) of expressing an action in progress: _ostan_ "I buy / I am buying" (also, in some contexts, "I will buy").

EDIT: I didn't see that AutumnOwl had already mentioned Finnish above; I left this window open for several minutes before sending this post.


----------



## ger4

French:

(French speakers please correct any mistakes)

Vous êtes à l' écoute de Radio XY - [you are at the listen of Radio XY] - You are listening to Radio XY


----------



## Gavril

Icelandic:

_Ég er *að* kaupa bíl_ "I am buying a car", literally "I am *at* buying a car"


Welsh:

_Mae ef *yn* prynu car_ "He is buying a car", literally "He is *in* buying a car"


English (dialectal/archaic):

_I am *a*-sleeping_ (literally "I am *on/in *sleeping")


----------



## themadprogramer

I didn't even know that it *ever *existed in English. Would you mind mentioning any texts or works it has appeared in ?


----------



## Ghabi

^Hello. You may take a look at this entry.


----------



## Gavril

By the way:



Ahmet Akkoç said:


> Two languages where I know this can be done are Chinese, and my native language Turkish.
> 
> In Chinese it goes as follows:
> 我    作   着        ->  我   在   作
> wo zuo zhe        ->  wo  zai  zuo
> I (am) doing      -> I (am) at doing
> 
> And in Turkish:
> Yapıyorum -> Yapmaktayım.
> (I am) doing -> (I am at) doing



Are these expressions in Turkish and Chinese restricted to the present tense, or can they also be used for the past imperfect (i.e. _I *was* doing_)?

The constructions that I have mentioned so far (in Finnish, English, etc.) do not specifically express the present tense: instead, they are expressions of the imperfect/durative aspect (_to be doing_ vs. _to have done_), which can be transferred into the past, present or future tenses as needed.


----------



## Ghabi

^Hello. The Mandarin structure is used to show a progressive aspect, and can be used in the past or future.


----------



## ancalimon

Gavril said:


> By the way:
> 
> 
> 
> Are these expressions in Turkish and Chinese restricted to the present tense, or can they also be used for the past imperfect (i.e. _I *was* doing_)?
> 
> The constructions that I have mentioned so far (in Finnish, English, etc.) do not specifically express the present tense: instead, they are expressions of the imperfect/durative aspect (_to be doing_ vs. _to have done_), which can be transferred into the past, present or future tenses as needed.



yapmaktaydım (yapmakta idim) : I was doing it.

By the way can't we say "I am at it (I am doing it)" in English?


----------



## Gavril

ancalimon said:


> yapmaktaydım (yapmakta idim) : I was doing it.
> 
> By the way can't we say "I am at it (I am doing it)" in English?



You can say _I am/was at it_, but it is not a neutral equivalent of _I am/was doing it. _It shows up in sentences like "He's at it again!", "3 o'clock in the morning and he was still at it", and so on.


----------



## ger4

Ahmet Akkoç said:


> I didn't even know that it *ever *existed in English. Would you mind mentioning any texts or works it has appeared in ?


On the topic of the (no longer productive) English prefix 'a' I found this short and simple explanation on Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-

Scrolling down to English/ etymolgy 2/ (5) 'in the act/process of' -  this might correspond to the usage mentioned by Gavril in #7 (a-hunting, a-singing a song etc)

 I've just noticed Ghabi mentioned the same link in #9 ... 

 So, at least I should add another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-Hunting_We_Will_Go ...where you can find song lyrics including the phrase "a-hunting we will go"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Etymology 2[edit]*


A proclitic form of preposition _a; from Old English an (“on”)_
_See a (preposition, on, to, in, etc.)_
*Pronunciation[edit]*



_IPA(key): /ə/_
*Prefix[edit]*

_*a-*_


_(no longer productive) in, on, at; used to show a state, condition, or manner. [First attested prior to 1150][1]*a*pace, *a*fire, *a*boil_
_(no longer productive) In, into. [First attested prior to 1150][1]*a*sunder_
_In the direction of, or toward. [First attested prior to 1150][1]*a*stern, *a*beam_
_(archaic, dialectal) At such a time. [First attested prior to 1150][1]Come *a*-morning we are going hunting._
_(archaic, dialectal) In the act or process of. [First attested prior to 1150][1]  [quotations ▼]Come morning, we are going *a*-hunting.They's *a*singing a song. He's *a*headed to the store_


----------



## Gavril

There are many "a-" prefixes of different origins in English: some from "on", some from "of", some from OE ge-, and so on.

This particular a- (preceding the -ing form of verbs) is explained by the Random House dictionary as coming from "on":



> a-1
> 
> 1.a reduced form of the Old English preposition _on_, meaning “on,” “in,”“into,” “to,” “toward,” preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element ( _afoot;abed; ashore; aside; away_), or before an adjective ( _afar; aloud;alow_), as a moribund prefix with a verb ( _acknowledge_), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (_set the bells aringing_); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (_ablaze; agape; aglow; astride;_ and originally, _awry_).





Holger2014 said:


> On the topic of the (no longer productive) English prefix 'a' I found this short and simple explanation on Wiktionary:


----------



## apmoy70

Ancient Greek had a similar structure: 

Preposition *«ἐν» ĕn* --> _in_ + neuter definite article in dative case *«τῷ» tǫ̃* (PIE instrumental, and locative cases merged with dative in Gr. therefore the Gr. dative represents all three of them) + infinitive:

*«ἐν τῷ διδάσκειν» ĕn tǫ̃* *dĭdáskein* --> _(I'm) in the teaching_ (I'm teaching)
*«ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι» ĕn tǫ̃* *krínĕstʰai* --> _(I'm) in the being judged_ (I'm on trial)
*«ἐν τῷ ἐσθίειν» ĕn tǫ̃* *ĕstʰíein* --> _(I'm) in the eating_ (I'm eating)


----------



## themadprogramer

I won't quote anyone specifically because 2-3 people asked. 

The Turkish locative structure is probably most similar to the above mentioned Chinese. However on it's own it represents the present or continuous. (Not present continuous  as in "-yor" and "-r")

To use it for future, past events or conditionals further conjugation is necessary.

For instance:
O girince uyu*makta*ydım -> I was sleeping when he came in. (You have to add the the past tense suffix "-di" or "-miş" at the end)
Ara*makta*ysa birazdan bulur -> If he is searching, he'll find it soon. (You have to add the simple conditional "-sa" suffix)

Also regarding this Archaic English a- prefix, is this the same "a-" in "ablaze"? Logically it seems to serve a similar purpose doesn't it?


----------



## Gavril

Yes, according to the same dictionary I mentioned in #15, _ablaze _contains the same prefix that originally meant "on". In some earlier sources, it is even written as two separate words: _on blase_.


----------



## kloie

Dutch has this too
if I am not mistaken Ik ben aan het eten=I am currently eating


----------



## themadprogramer

Now that I think about it this "a-" prefix appears in a lot of words.

Asleep
Aloft 
Afire

I wonder why it's not used nowadays to form new words. It seems to be quite useful.

But maybe it'd be best to open a separate thread for that


----------



## ThomasK

kloie said:


> Dutch has this too
> if I am not mistaken Ik ben aan het eten=I am currently eating


You're right! (Not sure whether you need this 'currently' in your translation; can there be any ambiguity in the sentence without it?)

By the way I think this is the basis of the grammaticalisation theory: some spatial prepositions gave rise to conjunctions and more abstract meaning. I think quite some purpose conjunctions referred to place originally: French _pour _(_que_/ inf.) English 'for' + gerund, 'to' + inf. There is also this parallel : 'leave for' // 'strive for'.


----------



## Stoggler

Gavril said:


> Welsh:
> 
> _Mae ef *yn* prynu car_ "He is buying a car", literally "He is *in* buying a car"



The Welsh *yn *in the sentence above does not mean "in", it is a particle that is etymologically unrelated to the *yn* that does mean "in".  Welsh is not an example of a language that uses this construction*

This is highlighted in the mutations that occur after the respective word: *yn *meaning "in" causes nasal mutation, whereas the participle* yn *causes soft mutation. Also, the particle* yn *can be contracted to* 'n *whereas the* yn* meaning "in" cannot.

* Welsh does have a construction using the preposition *am* (meaning "for") before a verb-noun, such as *Dw i am yfed cwrw *(lit. "I am for drinking beer"), but that is used when one wants to convey future intention ("I am going to drink beer").


----------



## Gavril

The _yn_ preceding verbal nouns doesn't cause soft mutation or any other mutation, unless (if I recall right) there is an elided object pronoun following it. For example, _y car y mae ef yn *b*rynu_ "the car that he is buying" (originally, _y car y mae ef yn *ei b*rynu_) If the object is a feminine noun, the aspirate mutation occurs instead: _yr ardd y mae ef yn *ph*rynu_ "the garden that he is buying".

Regarding the origin of this word, the dictionary Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru says that it's at least a possibility that it has the same origin as the locative preposition _yn_ (the website doesn't let me link to the relevant entry, but if you search for "yn" and click on "yn(2)", it will take you there).

As far as why the particle _yn_ fails to cause nasal mutation, I recall reading that there may have once been intervening pronouns between _yn_ and the verb (_yn ei/eu/ein/eich prynu_), which would have blocked nasalization before they disappeared from speech, but I don't know how widely accepted this idea is.



Stoggler said:


> The Welsh *yn *in the sentence above does not mean "in", it is a particle that is etymologically unrelated to the *yn* that does mean "in".  Welsh is not an example of a language that uses this construction*
> 
> This is highlighted in the mutations that occur after the respective word: *yn *meaning "in" causes nasal mutation, whereas the participle* yn *causes soft mutation. Also, the particle* yn *can be contracted to* 'n *whereas the* yn* meaning "in" cannot.
> 
> * Welsh does have a construction using the preposition *am* (meaning "for") before a verb-noun, such as *Dw i am yfed cwrw *(lit. "I am for drinking beer"), but that is used when one wants to convey future intention ("I am going to drink beer").


----------



## Stoggler

Gavril said:


> The _yn_ preceding verbal nouns doesn't cause soft mutation or any other mutation, unless (if I recall right) there is an elided object pronoun following it. For example, _y car y mae ef yn *b*rynu_ "the car that he is buying" (originally, _y car y mae ef yn *ei b*rynu_) If the object is a feminine noun, the aspirate mutation occurs instead: _yr ardd y mae ef yn *ph*rynu_ "the garden that he is buying".



God, you're right!  Getting mixed up with sentences with nouns as predicates!

However, no native Welsh speaker I've asked about this would consider the two yn words to be related in meaning and they do not consider a sentence such as "mae e'n prynu car" to be the equivalent of "he is in buying a car".


----------



## themadprogramer

A week or so ago I was trying to explain someone from Macedonia how this structure works. I'm curious if there's any similar structure throughout the Slavic languages.


----------



## Gavril

Ahmet Akkoç said:


> A week or so ago I was trying to explain someone from Macedonia how this structure works. I'm curious if there's any similar structure throughout the Slavic languages.



I can imagine (though I'm not sure) that this phenomenon would be rarer in Slavic than other European languages, because of how Slavic handles imperfective/durative aspect.

In many (perhaps all) Slavic languages, imperfective/perfective aspect is a lexical feature of verbs, not an inflectional one: in other words, you cannot make an imperfective verb perfective (nor vice versa) simply by adding an inflectional affix, or with an auxiliary verb construction like English _to be + -ing_.

This extends (at least partly) into verbal nouns as well: in Slovene, for example, the imperfective verb _zapisovati_ means "to be recording", and the related verbal noun _zapisovanje_ means "being in the process of recording". There is no need to add a locative preposition to the verbal noun to indicate durative aspect, since this aspect is already a part of the verb.


----------



## igusarov

Ahmet Akkoç said:


> I'm curious if there's any similar structure  throughout the Slavic languages.


Russian: Gavril is right,  nothing similar to "locative prefix + infinitive verb + locative  suffix"...

The closest construction I can think of is: "*locative prefix "behind" + noun naming a process*".  However, this construction is quite fragile: it doesn't work with any  combination of the predicate and the noun. But certain combinations  actually sound better than equivalent constructions based on participle. This construction is possible because the prefix with the primary meaning "behind" can sometimes mean "while". The noun must be in the instrumental case.

Color code for the following examples: active participle, locative prefix, noun (or gerund) naming a process.

1.  Suppose, we came over to a car dealer and saw an old friend who was  buying a car right at that moment. In other words we saw him while he  was in the process of buying a car.
"Мы застали его покупающим машину" (somewhat awkward). Word-for-word translation: "We caught him buying a car". 
"Мы застали его за покупкой машины" (good and idiomatic). Word-for-word translation: "We caught him behind buying a car".

2. Suppose, someone is spending a day at a lake, fishing all the time.
"Провести день рыбача" (awkward). Word-for-word translation: "Spend a day a-fishing".
"Провести день за рыбалкой" (good and idiomatic). Word-for-word translation: "Spend a day behind fishing".

3.  Suppose, we are having a breakfast. And during that breakfast we are  discussing a movie. In this example, "breakfast" is an independent noun.  It is not derived from a verb.
"Завтракая мы обсуждали фильм" (ok). Word-for-word translation: "Breakfasting, we talked about a movie".
"За завтраком мы обсуждали фильм" (good and idiomatic). Word-for-word translation: "Behind the breakfast we talked about a movie".


----------

