h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why are prepositions so slippery, so mutable in meaning? I've always thought it's because, like most verbs, they're relational: in 'the book is on the table', 'on' can be seen as just describing a relation between two objects.

Anhaga, your interesting suggestion that prepostions are used as substitutes for noun declensions is, I believe, only part of the story. There is historical evidence that noun endings were previously suffixes, and, before that, separate particles. So I reckon this is a cyclic process.

Little grammatical words have a tendency to get fused together or onto bigger words, for example, the fused Celtic preposition-pronouns (eg Irish liom, leat etc), subject-verbs in Western European languages (which English separates somewhat artificially, and usually only in writing), and 'bagarap' (to break down) from Tok Pisin

I had a quick peek at my Chinese dictionary to see what they do with prepositions round here. That'll teach me. Intent on doing things the other way round, they have postpositions rather than prepositions, and they're adverbs really anyway. So the above sentence translates verbatim:

Book locate table up.
I'm starting to see what I'm up against...

English used to have postpositions, too, until somebody decided you couldn't use them to end a sentence with.

shows what a mess the language's is in

Clare,

"Incidentally, Greek prepositions change their meaning depending on what case is used after them. For example
'dia'+ acc. =because of, while
'dia'+gen.=through.
bet you were all dying to know that! "

That's outrageous!

So, when we say "The Greeks had a word for it" we should really say:
"The Greeks had a word for it but half the time it meant something entirely different".

Plaguesville,
I know it's outrageous! The problem is that there is no ablative case in Greek, so no 'default case' for prepositions to take. They are therefore shared between accusative, genitive and dative, without, as far as i can see, any logical pattern. Some, like 'dia', can take several cases, and change their meaning depending on which is used. A similar thing happens in Latin and German, though with more logic. For example, 'in silva' (ablative) means in the wood, while 'in silvam' (accusative) means into the wood. In German, some prepositions always go with dative, some with accusative (no ablative here either), and some change depending on the meaning. Again, 'im (from in dem) Haus'(dative) means in the house, and 'ins (from in das) Haus' (accusative) means into the house.
So, yes, a lot of the words people quote as being the greek equivalent mean something different half the time.

Just looking in on the thread.

Erm, resident thicky here.

Can someone define accusative, ablative, dative and genitive for me?

Clare,

You've just reminded me of how much I've forgotten in 40 years.
Now, what can I remember? Erm ... Arma virumque cano ... Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis ... that's it really ...

Hi, Thicky,
That's an interesting abbreviation of your name.

An elderly thicko writes:
Have a rule of thumb which will be corrected by someone else, later.
Nominative is the subject of the verb. *I* go *You* come too.
Accusitive is the object of the verb, something that has something done to it. I hit *the roof*.
You didn't ask about Vocative but there's no extra charge. Something which is called - *You* come here now.!
Genitive indicates possession of a sort. The pen *of my aunt*.
Dative is *to or for*. Give this apple *to the horse* or This apple is *for the horse* (not as in making a swap)
Ablative indicates *by, with or from*. I was given homework *by the Latin master* I am running away *from school*. D'you wanna come *with me*.

How are you fixed for a subjunctive?

Aha, now, thanks to Spiff, I have Mr. Glass's book which I think I retain some info about subjuntives from. But don;t ask for an explanation, I am a master study in the art of 'know how to use it, couldn;t explain it'!

Thanks for the info above, helps me understand a few of the previous posts!

BTW, thicky was not an abbreviation, more of a description, but I forgive you The old 'I can say this because I am this, but you can;t!'

You can't frighten me!
I've got a beard.

Really?

Whose is it?

Mine!

I got it in Ireland in 1969 when I was on holiday. It must have been a good year because it's lasted quite well, but the colour is beginning to fade slightly.

'69 is a good year to have got a beard

Ah!

Hadn't thought of that.
I think I'll try not to.
I've just had a flashback: "Every Home Should Have One" Marty Feldman amongst others and a lady wearing a lot of lipstick biting a hot dog.
I've just decided to give up eating bananas, too.

So anyway, BritEng, what's so bad about postpositions then?

There are lots of phrases and common english usage uses them, so what's the prolem then?

Postpositions:
(That's supposed to be changing the subject?)

I don't think we have a rule to deal with them, if indeed there is a "them" and they are not just prepositions with a poor sense of direction. I must go and consult my pillow otherwise I shall be too tired to help DC win at Imola.

Completely off topic, I know but...

An interesting (and courageous!) example of the difficulties of translating into English

A1028170

turvy

Plaguesville:

You forgot instrumental and locative.

instrumental is the stick with which you hit someone and locative is the sidewalk upon which they stretch themselves.

Erm ... how can I put this, anhaga? ...

I didn't forget them, I've just never heard of them.
Either things get more complicated as they travel west, or, as I have never lived in a frontier environment I have never had need of them.

In this circumstance I normally make adverse comments about "whippersnappers" but I cannot dismiss you so lightly.