<p>The thing you're describing isn't really &quot;not having adpositions&quot;. What you have is a robust system of <strong>applicative constructions</strong> - a type of valency-increasing operation in which an oblique object (e.g. the object of an adpositional phrase, like &quot;under the <em>tree</em>&quot;) gets promoted to direct object. And they typically evolve in exactly the way you've done - by moving the oblique object marker (adposition, case marker, etc.) off of the oblique object and onto the verb itself.</p>
<p>I don't know of any natural languages off the top of my head that have taken applicatives to such an extreme as to eliminate adpositions as a separate word class entirely, but I don't think there's a theoretical reason why it <em>couldn't</em> be done. It's not that different in spirit to having a very robust system of locative cases like Hungarian, just that you're marking the verb instead of the noun.</p>
<p>It's not that applicatives aren't an interesting idea - but I just don't understand the preoccupation some other conlangers have with eliminating parts of speech. The grammatical relationships they mediate still have to be expressed somehow, so you inevitably end up inventing something that performs the same function, but is just called by a different name. You're still communicating spacial relationships, so you might not have &quot;adpositions&quot;, but you do still have adpositions, in a sense.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-20T17:33:49.923Z
2024-08-20T17:33:49.923Z
Arcaeca
<p>Wondering if this sort of system would get rid of adpositions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The cat is on the table.<br/>
the cat on-be the table.</p>
<p>She walked through the park.<br/>
she through-walked the park.</p>
<p>They sat under the tree.<br/>
they under-sat the tree.</p>
<p>She quickly looked at the blue sky.<br/>
she quickly at-looked the blue sky.</p>
<p>She saw deep-blue. <em>(saw [adjective])</em></p>
<p>The book on the shelf is mine.<br/>
the book that on-be the shelf is mine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is, there are 3 types of sentence objects:</p>
<ul>
<li>actions (verbs)</li>
<li>objects (nouns)</li>
<li>designs (adjectives/adverbs, features/manners/aspects/etc.)</li>
</ul>
<p>The statements like &quot;on-is&quot; means &quot;be&quot; with a feature/manner/design/aspect of &quot;on&quot;. So it is similar to adverbs.</p>
<p>Is it possible in such a way to get rid of adpositions entirely?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T00:18:19.417Z
How many real world languages don't have adpositions? Do they "not work"?
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-27T03:06:32.273Z
@curiousdannii I don't know, are there any?
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-27T05:50:24.900Z
It's not hard to look up: https://wals.info/chapter/85
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-30T01:46:13.897Z
@user181917 Mandarin is listed as no dominant order, meaning it has both prepositions and postpositions. I don't really know anything about Chinese grammar, but the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_grammar) discusses both prepositions and postpositions many times.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-11T14:00:22.767Z
Fun fact: Proto-Indogermanic, as reconstructed, does not have adpositions, see [Schleicher's fable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable) for a short sample text how it works.
Sir Cornflakes
<grammar><adpositions>
A conlang without adpositions (would this system work)?
# A conlang without adpositions (would this system work)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-20)

Wondering if this sort of system would get rid of adpositions:

> The cat is on the table.  
> the cat on-be the table.
>
> She walked through the park.  
> she through-walked the park.
>
> They sat under the tree.  
> they under-sat the tree.
>
> She quickly looked at the blue sky.  
> she quickly at-looked the blue sky.
>
> She saw deep-blue. *(saw [adjective])*
>
> The book on the shelf is mine.  
> the book that on-be the shelf is mine.

That is, there are 3 types of sentence objects:

* actions (verbs)
* objects (nouns)
* designs (adjectives/adverbs, features/manners/aspects/etc.)

The statements like "on-is" means "be" with a feature/manner/design/aspect of "on". So it is similar to adverbs.

Is it possible in such a way to get rid of adpositions entirely?

**Tags:** grammar, adpositions
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How many real world languages don't have adpositions? Do they "not work"?  
> **username_0**: @curiousdannii I don't know, are there any?  
> **username_1**: It's not hard to look up: https://wals.info/chapter/85  
> **username_1**: @user181917 Mandarin is listed as no dominant order, meaning it has both prepositions and postpositions. I don't really know anything about Chinese grammar, but the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_grammar) discusses both prepositions and postpositions many times.  
> **username_2**: Fun fact: Proto-Indogermanic, as reconstructed, does not have adpositions, see [Schleicher's fable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable) for a short sample text how it works.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-08-20. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

The thing you're describing isn't really "not having adpositions". What you have is a robust system of **applicative constructions** - a type of valency-increasing operation in which an oblique object (e.g. the object of an adpositional phrase, like "under the *tree*") gets promoted to direct object. And they typically evolve in exactly the way you've done - by moving the oblique object marker (adposition, case marker, etc.) off of the oblique object and onto the verb itself.

I don't know of any natural languages off the top of my head that have taken applicatives to such an extreme as to eliminate adpositions as a separate word class entirely, but I don't think there's a theoretical reason why it *couldn't* be done. It's not that different in spirit to having a very robust system of locative cases like Hungarian, just that you're marking the verb instead of the noun.

It's not that applicatives aren't an interesting idea - but I just don't understand the preoccupation some other conlangers have with eliminating parts of speech. The grammatical relationships they mediate still have to be expressed somehow, so you inevitably end up inventing something that performs the same function, but is just called by a different name. You're still communicating spacial relationships, so you might not have "adpositions", but you do still have adpositions, in a sense.


---

