<p>I don't know of any languages where spatial marking is thoroughly compulsory in the same way aspect often is, however I do know of some potentially interesting cases of spatial marking. A lot of Papuan languages have grammaticalised systems for showing directionality and location. They are usually described as being relative to the speaker, but in at least some cases I have found them described as being relative to either the speaker or the village, or some other not wholly speaker-focussed system. The Nimboran languages in particular have highly complex systems e.g. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120322005554/http://papuaweb.org/dlib/irian/5-2.PDF" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wilden(1976)</a> describes Kemtuk as having the following system: <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/giiWp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://i.sstatic.net/giiWp.png</a>, but says that it is optional.  <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210507031518/https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e72e0d14-2ab0-4423-bf45-3928ac843ab6/613375.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anceaux (1965)</a> describes 16 different spatial categories in Nimboran proper, but in a rather unhelpful manner. He notes that the unmarked position category, when the speaker is involved has a specific meaning of &quot;near the speaker&quot;, but that it is also always used when the speakers position is indefinite or irrelevant, such as in stories or general statements. In at least some languages I have looked at, these markers were compulsory with motion verbs.</p>
<p>A somewhat different system involving location relative to other events is described by <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ling.1973.11.issue-110/ling.1973.11.110.43/ling.1973.11.110.43.xml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Huisman (1973)</a> who reports that Angaataha has a class of medial verbs which are inflected for whether they occur in the same place or in a different place as the following conjunct.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, none of this completely satisfies your request, but it shows that at least some things are definitely attested, and distinguish other, or more fine categories than what you've found yourself.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-03-05T16:25:32.237Z
2023-04-22T18:44:37.137Z
2023-04-22T18:44:37.137Z
Gufferdk
<p><em>By definition</em>, aspect is defined in relation to the action's <em>temporality</em>. As such, no there is no language, natural or otherwise with "spatial aspect".</p>

<p>However, countless languages do incorporate spatiality in verbs, whether that be in morphology or, less commonly, in the verbal paradigm. Germanic languages particles come to mind, but Nuučaan̓uł has affixes meaning, among others "at the ear", "at the side of a vessel" and "on the beach" (<em>Advanced Language Construction</em>, 179-180). Quechua does have (<a href="https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/296550/bookpart.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">as I understand it</a>) a mandatory directional -mu for verbs of movement. If absent, it explicitly excludes movement toward the speaker.</p>

<p>For sure nothing prevents you from making spatiality the main category affecting verbal forms.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-07T15:12:54.753Z
2018-03-07T15:12:54.753Z
Circeus
<p>As described <a href="https://conlang.stackexchange.com/questions/329/what-is-the-difference-between-tense-and-aspect">here</a>, <em>Aspect</em> refers to the grammatical marking of the relation between topic and eventuality <em>time</em>, that is, it marking in what way the time an action actually occurs relates to the time currently being talked about. So in the sentence “Before returning home, he had gone shopping”, the topic time would be the moment of arriving home, and the eventuality time the time of going shopping, and the English past perfect marks that the latter happened before the former.</p>

<p>A logical extension of this system then would be to not only mark for differences in topic and eventuality <em>time</em>, but also topic and eventuality <em>space</em>. In the above sentence, the topic space (or location) would be the home, while the location of the shopping would be the eventuality space. The sentence might then mark for the fact that the shopping center is far away from the home, as opposed to (for example), inside the home. Further distinctions could be made with regards to motion: shopping is fairly stationary, but in “To get home, he had to drive on the highway”, there is clear motion towards the topic space and this too might be marked.</p>

<p>So I am curious, does anything along these lines exist in natural languages? The closest thing I was able to find were <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andative_and_venitive" rel="noreferrer">cis- and translocative markers</a> in some languages, but the examples don’t really make it clear that this is used in a mandatory inflectional manner the same way temporal aspect is in many language.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T16:14:36.993Z
Why do the andative and venitive aspects you linked to not count? Languages that have temporal aspects also have to default to something when the aspect isn't relevant, so I don't see why the fact it isn't mandatory disqualifies it
b a
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T16:28:27.693Z
Natural languages aren't constructed languages. The question is off-topic for this site.
avpaderno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T16:43:19.193Z
@kiamlaluno I sincerely disagree. To create a naturalistic language, one must look at the data found in natural ones. As such, if I come up with an idea such as this, I'll want to verify its plausibility
Sascha Baer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T16:59:33.920Z
_Naturalistic_ languages aren't natural languages. It's not that, because I want to create a constructed language that resemble Italian, I can ask questions about Italian here.
avpaderno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T17:07:51.283Z
@kiamlaluno The single most important way in which one can improve in conlanging is to learn more about what languages do in general. I could restate my question as _I have thought of this feature for my conlang, is it naturalistic?_, which would be the same question essentially, but likely attract lesser quality answers. To ban questions on linguistic patterns would be to ban questions on music theory on a composition forum.
Sascha Baer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T17:09:50.607Z
@ba From what I can tell, those systems seem to be somewhat marginal in the verbal system, often (but not necessarily) restricted to certain verbs such as ones of motion. In addition, they only describe one axis of the two I mentioned (they only encode direction of motion, but not distance). As such there is a lot of room for expansion and I’m curious to see how far natural languages take it.
Sascha Baer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T17:14:48.763Z
You can ask the question about a feature on constructed languages, and how to make it sound more _natural_. There is _Linguistics_ for questions about features common to a group of natural languages.
avpaderno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-06T00:35:07.823Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks about natural languages and does not adequately make its relevance to conlangs known.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-10T04:37:50.650Z
I don't think marking questions as off-topic solely because they don't explicitly reference conlangs in the question is good precedent -- certainly there are some questions about natlangs that are not a good fit for this site, but questions about typology and stuff like "does this exist in a natlang?" seem perfectly within the purview of this site.
Sparksbet
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-11T22:43:54.777Z
It's late and I'm tired, and I'm afraid that I may be misunderstanding your question, which is why this is a comment and not an answer. Have you looked at any signed languages?
TRiG
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-12T05:17:09.967Z
@TRiG I have looked at one (Swiss German) in the past but can't remember anything like what I'm looking for. I know they sometimes allow for places to be indexed, in which case eg a verb of motion can inflect for the destination, but this seems more akin to using pronouns to me.
Sascha Baer
<grammar><tense-aspect-mood>
Is the concept of “spatial aspect” attested in any natural language?
# Is the concept of “spatial aspect” attested in any natural language?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-05)

As described [here](https://conlang.stackexchange.com/questions/329/what-is-the-difference-between-tense-and-aspect), *Aspect* refers to the grammatical marking of the relation between topic and eventuality *time*, that is, it marking in what way the time an action actually occurs relates to the time currently being talked about. So in the sentence “Before returning home, he had gone shopping”, the topic time would be the moment of arriving home, and the eventuality time the time of going shopping, and the English past perfect marks that the latter happened before the former.

A logical extension of this system then would be to not only mark for differences in topic and eventuality *time*, but also topic and eventuality *space*. In the above sentence, the topic space (or location) would be the home, while the location of the shopping would be the eventuality space. The sentence might then mark for the fact that the shopping center is far away from the home, as opposed to (for example), inside the home. Further distinctions could be made with regards to motion: shopping is fairly stationary, but in “To get home, he had to drive on the highway”, there is clear motion towards the topic space and this too might be marked.

So I am curious, does anything along these lines exist in natural languages? The closest thing I was able to find were [cis- and translocative markers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andative_and_venitive) in some languages, but the examples don’t really make it clear that this is used in a mandatory inflectional manner the same way temporal aspect is in many language.

**Tags:** grammar, tense-aspect-mood
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Why do the andative and venitive aspects you linked to not count? Languages that have temporal aspects also have to default to something when the aspect isn't relevant, so I don't see why the fact it isn't mandatory disqualifies it  
> **username_2**: Natural languages aren't constructed languages. The question is off-topic for this site.  
> **username_0**: @kiamlaluno I sincerely disagree. To create a naturalistic language, one must look at the data found in natural ones. As such, if I come up with an idea such as this, I'll want to verify its plausibility  
> **username_2**: _Naturalistic_ languages aren't natural languages. It's not that, because I want to create a constructed language that resemble Italian, I can ask questions about Italian here.  
> **username_0**: @kiamlaluno The single most important way in which one can improve in conlanging is to learn more about what languages do in general. I could restate my question as _I have thought of this feature for my conlang, is it naturalistic?_, which would be the same question essentially, but likely attract lesser quality answers. To ban questions on linguistic patterns would be to ban questions on music theory on a composition forum.  
> **username_0**: @ba From what I can tell, those systems seem to be somewhat marginal in the verbal system, often (but not necessarily) restricted to certain verbs such as ones of motion. In addition, they only describe one axis of the two I mentioned (they only encode direction of motion, but not distance). As such there is a lot of room for expansion and I’m curious to see how far natural languages take it.  
> **username_2**: You can ask the question about a feature on constructed languages, and how to make it sound more _natural_. There is _Linguistics_ for questions about features common to a group of natural languages.  
> **username_3**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks about natural languages and does not adequately make its relevance to conlangs known.  
> **username_4**: I don't think marking questions as off-topic solely because they don't explicitly reference conlangs in the question is good precedent -- certainly there are some questions about natlangs that are not a good fit for this site, but questions about typology and stuff like "does this exist in a natlang?" seem perfectly within the purview of this site.  
> **username_5**: It's late and I'm tired, and I'm afraid that I may be misunderstanding your question, which is why this is a comment and not an answer. Have you looked at any signed languages?  
> **username_0**: @TRiG I have looked at one (Swiss German) in the past but can't remember anything like what I'm looking for. I know they sometimes allow for places to be indexed, in which case eg a verb of motion can inflect for the destination, but this seems more akin to using pronouns to me.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-03-05. Score: 7

I don't know of any languages where spatial marking is thoroughly compulsory in the same way aspect often is, however I do know of some potentially interesting cases of spatial marking. A lot of Papuan languages have grammaticalised systems for showing directionality and location. They are usually described as being relative to the speaker, but in at least some cases I have found them described as being relative to either the speaker or the village, or some other not wholly speaker-focussed system. The Nimboran languages in particular have highly complex systems e.g. [Wilden(1976)](https://web.archive.org/web/20120322005554/http://papuaweb.org/dlib/irian/5-2.PDF) describes Kemtuk as having the following system: <https://i.sstatic.net/giiWp.png>, but says that it is optional. [Anceaux (1965)](https://web.archive.org/web/20210507031518/https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e72e0d14-2ab0-4423-bf45-3928ac843ab6/613375.pdf) describes 16 different spatial categories in Nimboran proper, but in a rather unhelpful manner. He notes that the unmarked position category, when the speaker is involved has a specific meaning of "near the speaker", but that it is also always used when the speakers position is indefinite or irrelevant, such as in stories or general statements. In at least some languages I have looked at, these markers were compulsory with motion verbs.

A somewhat different system involving location relative to other events is described by [Huisman (1973)](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ling.1973.11.issue-110/ling.1973.11.110.43/ling.1973.11.110.43.xml) who reports that Angaataha has a class of medial verbs which are inflected for whether they occur in the same place or in a different place as the following conjunct.

As far as I can tell, none of this completely satisfies your request, but it shows that at least some things are definitely attested, and distinguish other, or more fine categories than what you've found yourself.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-03-07. Score: -2

*By definition*, aspect is defined in relation to the action's *temporality*. As such, no there is no language, natural or otherwise with "spatial aspect".

However, countless languages do incorporate spatiality in verbs, whether that be in morphology or, less commonly, in the verbal paradigm. Germanic languages particles come to mind, but Nuučaan̓uł has affixes meaning, among others "at the ear", "at the side of a vessel" and "on the beach" (*Advanced Language Construction*, 179-180). Quechua does have ([as I understand it](https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/296550/bookpart.pdf)) a mandatory directional -mu for verbs of movement. If absent, it explicitly excludes movement toward the speaker.

For sure nothing prevents you from making spatiality the main category affecting verbal forms.


---

