<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols;" dir="ltr">
<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Christian, dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Up to this discussion I thought that there was the well-established term ROUND-TRIP (Christian actually mentions the label, but only in a translation, not as a term). See, for instance, Macaulay’s (1996) discussion of
Mixtec motion verbs, where round-trip plays an important role. (But maybe you think weird neo-Latin items are generally better than plainly understandable English expressions as terms.)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">However, I would like to pick up another issue. Of course, you can want to unite meanings such as
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(i) ‘move from A to B and back to A; move (round-trip)’ and
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(ii) ‘move from A for the purpose of picking up X at B and then to C [A can be C, but need not, you can fetch the axe from the shed while going to the woods from home.]’
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">in one comparative concept. But this does not seem to be particularly “fruitful” (Lazard 2002: 148) cross-linguistically as a “generalizing concept” (Dahl 2016). Languages lexicalizing ‘fetch / [German] holen’ do not
generally distinguish ‘move (roundtrip)’ vs. ‘move (unidirectional)’ (and repeatedly moving back-and-forth as in David’s Georgian example is yet another thing), and if they do – as Finnish
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">käydä</i> ‘go (roundtrip)’ and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
hakea</i> ‘fetch’ – not necessarily in a connected manner (see differences in case use in Johanna’s examples). Already within European ‘fetch/holen’ verbs, there are considerable differences in use. (For instance, Swedish
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">hämta</i> ‘fetch’ is strongly associated with picking up children from daycare where its antonym is
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">lämna</i> literally: “leave” ‘drop off’).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Note also that certain Central Eurasian languages, such as Mari (Uralic), make a distinction between (ii a) ‘fetch mass noun, in the most prototypical case: water’, which is expressed with a case (dative in Mari), in
some languages it is an adposition, see (1), and (ii b) ‘pick up persons, fetch countable items’, which is expressed by “take”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(1) Meadow Mari (Alhoniemi 1985: 53; writing ASCIIfied)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Tudo pamash deke vüd-<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">lan</b> oshkyl kolt-ysh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3SG spring to water-<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">DAT</b> walk AUX/send-PST.3SG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">‘S/he walked to the spring to fetch water’ lit. "walked to the spring for water"</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Alhoniemi (1985: 53) characterizes the function in (1) as follows: “tämä on eräänlainen finaaliadverbiaalin erikoistapaus” ‘this is a kind of special case of purpose adverbial’. Maybe not so strange then that many languages
do not seem to lexicalize ‘fetch’ and often just have “take”. In purpose constructions such as ‘Y went (in order) to fetch/take X’, a special lexical verb is quite pleonastic. Which means that constructions might matter far beyond the serial verb constructions
mentioned by Alex. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Generally, as long as abstract comparative concepts have not proven to be fruitful cross-linguistically, it may be good to keep semantic domains pretty granular for both description and cross-linguistical comparison.
It is certainly useful to ask such questions as to how things such as the following are expressed:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(i) ‘X went to B (and came back).’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(ii) ‘X fetched water.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(iii) ‘The parent picked up their child from daycare.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(iv) ‘They moved back and forth repeatedly.’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">But as long as no clear cross-linguistic pattern is established between the responses (for instance, as a semantic map), it does not make much sense to believe that they should necessarily be considered together. Put
differently, saying that many languages have such a relation in their grammar (or lexicon), but that languages usually just embody one (any) of its possible manifestations is tantamount to saying that such an abstract general relation does not make sense from
a cross-linguistic point of view.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bernhard Wälchli<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">
Marin kielioppi.</i> Helsinki. Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Dahl, Östen. 2016. Thoughts on language-specific and crosslinguistic entities.
<i>Linguistic Typology </i>20(2): 427–437.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research.
<i>Folia Linguistica </i>36. 141–190.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:#0070C0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-no-proof:yes">Macaulay, Monica. 1996.
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A Grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec</i>. University of California Publications in Linguistics 127. Berkeley: University of California Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<br>
<p></p>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 8, 2024 10:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Lingtyp] retrolative</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
I was told occasionally that there is a local relation - let's call it retrolative - consisting of a movement to reference point R and back to the point of departure. In the languages that have it in their grammar, it would be in a paradigm with ablative, allative,
perlative. Unless I am mistaken, English only has it embodied in the meaning of <i>
fetch</i>, and likewise in German <i>holen</i>.<br>
<ol>
<li>Is retrolative the right term, or is the relation known under a different term?
</li><li>Please give me a representative example of the type 'Jane went to R round-trip' or 'Jane fetched the axe from the shed' using a retrolative case or adposition or a retrolative formative in some other structural category.
</li></ol>
Thanks in advance,<br>
Christian<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>