<p>It is not uncommon for natlangs to use directional morphemes on verbs quite systematically, with very thin relations with their full meaning.</p>
<p>For instance, rGyalrong languages have sets of <em>orientational prefixes</em>, indicating up, down, upstream, downstream, eastwards, westwards,... motions, prefixed to a large number of verb forms, which take different forms depending on tense/aspect/mood of the verb they are attached to. Although they have their full meaning when used with verbs of motion, they also appear on non-motion verbs to convey TAM information, with one specific prefix being assigned to one specific verb with more or less clear semantic reason for that. For instance, the verb <em>to eat</em> takes the the directional prefix <em>upwards</em> in all past forms.</p>
<p>So a possible reason for your ventive/andative morphemes to appear on non-motion verb would be</p>
<ol>
<li>The ventive/andative take different forms depending on TAM categories of the motion verbs (this could be the result of an earlier merging of morphemes)</li>
<li>They gradually loose their full semantic value and are later reinterpreted as TAM markers, and generalized to non-motion verbs.</li>
</ol>
<p>It is also not uncommon for the ventive/andative to have quite large ranges of meaning, as many things can be interpreted (more or less metaphorically) as motions towards or away from the deictic <em>here</em>. To quote Gábor Zólyomi (<em>An Introduction to the grammar of Sumerian</em>, 11.3)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Apparently, the use of the ventive divides the deictic space into a “here”
and a “there” in Sumerian, and the association with the “here” may be based
not only on considerations of physical proximity. When the ventive refers to
neither the speaker nor the addressee, but to a 3rd ps. participant, then its use
seems to be extended metaphorically to function as an emphatetic deictic
element. Linguistic empathy is described as “the speaker’s attitude with respect
to who, among speech event participants (the speaker and the hearer) and the
participants of an event or state that he describes, the speaker takes sides with.”
(Kuno 1978: 174).
This use of the ventive is a logical extension of its basic deictic function to
refer to a “here-ness”, or “hither-ness”: its use therefore may imply emotional
closeness, an evaluative or subjective alignment between the writer or narrator
and the participant(s) of an event he describes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In fact, the Sumerian ventive is so ubiquitous it was until recently labeled as a &quot;conjugation prefix&quot; without any clear value. So you do not necessarily need a strong motivation for generalizing it to non-motion verbs and large deictic range.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the Sumerian ventive also functions as a 1sg dative pronominal prefix, with the latter use having historically developed from the former, so there is indeed some &quot;screwing with argument structure&quot; in Sumerian resembling what you described.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-03T12:10:01.840Z
2024-06-04T08:57:16.183Z
2024-06-04T08:57:16.183Z
Erithacus Rubecula
<p>I'm in the middle of redesigning the verb paradigm for one of my languages, and I'm confronted with the dilemma of knowing that I want a prefix that looks like <em>this</em>, placed <em>there</em> for aesthetic reasons, but not knowing what this prefix is supposed to actually do. I really like marking categories on the verb that evolve into ways to screw with tense or argument structure in really un-straightforward ways.</p>
<p>I've been toying with the idea of using this unassigned prefix to mark the venitive/andative, and I intuitively feel like that could evolve into an indirect object marker, i.e. venitive &quot;towards here&quot; &gt; &quot;in my direction&quot; &gt; &quot;to me&quot; 1.IO vs. andative &quot;towards over there&quot; &gt; &quot;towards that guy&quot; &gt; &quot;to him&quot; 3.IO. This feels like it <em>should</em> work, but WLG doesn't list it, so I'm doubting myself a little. Does this seem naturalistic? Would venitive &gt; autobenefactive vs. andative &gt; allobenefactive be more believable?</p>
<p>(And presumably you could also derive a 2.IO if these come from a 3-way proximity distinction system: proximal &gt; venitive, distal &gt; andative, but what would be the name for the thing medial would turn into?)</p>
<p>My main problem with this is that venitives/andatives are primarily a thing for verbs of motion, but indirect objects would presumably need to be marked on all sorts of verbs. This would require putting venitive/andative marking on non-motion verbs, but I don't know what would motivate extending venitive/andative to those verbs in the first place. Like, as an indirect object marker you could say something like e.g. &quot;I bought flowers for her&quot;, but I'm basically positing that this evolved from an earlier *&quot;I bought flowers moving in her direction&quot;, which doesn't make sense and I don't know why anyone would say that. So I don't know why the &quot;moving in her direction&quot; would get attached in the first place, and then how would it evolve into 3.IO if it's not there anymore?</p>
<p>How do real languages use venitives/andatives beyond just simply for verbs of motion? Is there another shift in meaning venitives/andatives can undergo to justify putting them on non-motion verbs? And bonus, if the verb can't simultaneously be using the affix to mark this alternate thing <em>and</em> indirect objects at the same time, then that's &quot;screwing with argument structure in a really un-straightforward way&quot;!</p>

<morphology><diachronics><verbs><language-change><evolution>
Extending venitives/andatives
# Extending venitives/andatives

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-04-30)

I'm in the middle of redesigning the verb paradigm for one of my languages, and I'm confronted with the dilemma of knowing that I want a prefix that looks like *this*, placed *there* for aesthetic reasons, but not knowing what this prefix is supposed to actually do. I really like marking categories on the verb that evolve into ways to screw with tense or argument structure in really un-straightforward ways.

I've been toying with the idea of using this unassigned prefix to mark the venitive/andative, and I intuitively feel like that could evolve into an indirect object marker, i.e. venitive "towards here" > "in my direction" > "to me" 1.IO vs. andative "towards over there" > "towards that guy" > "to him" 3.IO. This feels like it *should* work, but WLG doesn't list it, so I'm doubting myself a little. Does this seem naturalistic? Would venitive > autobenefactive vs. andative > allobenefactive be more believable?

(And presumably you could also derive a 2.IO if these come from a 3-way proximity distinction system: proximal > venitive, distal > andative, but what would be the name for the thing medial would turn into?)

My main problem with this is that venitives/andatives are primarily a thing for verbs of motion, but indirect objects would presumably need to be marked on all sorts of verbs. This would require putting venitive/andative marking on non-motion verbs, but I don't know what would motivate extending venitive/andative to those verbs in the first place. Like, as an indirect object marker you could say something like e.g. "I bought flowers for her", but I'm basically positing that this evolved from an earlier \*"I bought flowers moving in her direction", which doesn't make sense and I don't know why anyone would say that. So I don't know why the "moving in her direction" would get attached in the first place, and then how would it evolve into 3.IO if it's not there anymore?

How do real languages use venitives/andatives beyond just simply for verbs of motion? Is there another shift in meaning venitives/andatives can undergo to justify putting them on non-motion verbs? And bonus, if the verb can't simultaneously be using the affix to mark this alternate thing *and* indirect objects at the same time, then that's "screwing with argument structure in a really un-straightforward way"!

**Tags:** morphology, diachronics, verbs, language-change, evolution

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-06-03. Score: 2

It is not uncommon for natlangs to use directional morphemes on verbs quite systematically, with very thin relations with their full meaning.

For instance, rGyalrong languages have sets of *orientational prefixes*, indicating up, down, upstream, downstream, eastwards, westwards,... motions, prefixed to a large number of verb forms, which take different forms depending on tense/aspect/mood of the verb they are attached to. Although they have their full meaning when used with verbs of motion, they also appear on non-motion verbs to convey TAM information, with one specific prefix being assigned to one specific verb with more or less clear semantic reason for that. For instance, the verb *to eat* takes the the directional prefix *upwards* in all past forms.

So a possible reason for your ventive/andative morphemes to appear on non-motion verb would be

1. The ventive/andative take different forms depending on TAM categories of the motion verbs (this could be the result of an earlier merging of morphemes)
2. They gradually loose their full semantic value and are later reinterpreted as TAM markers, and generalized to non-motion verbs.

It is also not uncommon for the ventive/andative to have quite large ranges of meaning, as many things can be interpreted (more or less metaphorically) as motions towards or away from the deictic *here*. To quote Gábor Zólyomi (*An Introduction to the grammar of Sumerian*, 11.3)

> Apparently, the use of the ventive divides the deictic space into a “here”
> and a “there” in Sumerian, and the association with the “here” may be based
> not only on considerations of physical proximity. When the ventive refers to
> neither the speaker nor the addressee, but to a 3rd ps. participant, then its use
> seems to be extended metaphorically to function as an emphatetic deictic
> element. Linguistic empathy is described as “the speaker’s attitude with respect
> to who, among speech event participants (the speaker and the hearer) and the
> participants of an event or state that he describes, the speaker takes sides with.”
> (Kuno 1978: 174).
> This use of the ventive is a logical extension of its basic deictic function to
> refer to a “here-ness”, or “hither-ness”: its use therefore may imply emotional
> closeness, an evaluative or subjective alignment between the writer or narrator
> and the participant(s) of an event he describes.

In fact, the Sumerian ventive is so ubiquitous it was until recently labeled as a "conjugation prefix" without any clear value. So you do not necessarily need a strong motivation for generalizing it to non-motion verbs and large deictic range.

Incidentally, the Sumerian ventive also functions as a 1sg dative pronominal prefix, with the latter use having historically developed from the former, so there is indeed some "screwing with argument structure" in Sumerian resembling what you described.


---

