Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!kimbark!deb5
From: deb5@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: "Wanna come with?" [was: Re: German postpositions]
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DFs68n.M6v@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <44btbq$c54@clarknet.clark.net> <44bv64$q76@bone.think.com> <DFq7Mz.2uI@midway.uchicago.edu> <44kfdq$14b@bone.think.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:36:22 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <44kfdq$14b@bone.think.com>, Daan Sandee <sandee@think.com> wrote:
>In article <DFq7Mz.2uI@midway.uchicago.edu> deb5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <44bv64$q76@bone.think.com>, Daan Sandee <sandee@Think.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've also heard it in Paris, to my great surprise. And (as in the original
>>>case of Chicago English) in cases where it wouldn't be used in Dutch or
>>>German, as in "C'est dommage qu'il ne peut pas venir avec" / "It's a
>>>pity that he can't come with". 
>>
>>I'm confused; how is this a case where the expression "wouldn't be used
>>in Dutch or German"?  German would have "Schade, dass er nicht mitkommen
>>kann."  
>
>But that is not a postposition (check subject line). 

But neither is "avec" in "venir avec."  I know you've read my previous posts
in this thread, so I know you've seen my objections to calling "with" in
"come with" a postposition:  If it's a postposition, where's its object?
"mit" in "mitgehen" is a verbal complement, like "weg" in "weggehen" or
"rad" in "radfahren."  The fact that it is homophonous with the _prepo-
sition_ "mit" is of only historical interest.  Similarly, the resemblance
between "avec" the preposition and "avec" the adverb/verbal particle.

>German has "er kommt
>mit", but not "Schade, dass er nicht kommt mit." 

But it does have "Schade, er kommt nicht mit" and "Schade, dass er nicht 
kommt mit" occurs dialectically (and in Yiddish, if I'm not mistaken).

>I know the reason is that 
>"mitgehen" will not be broken up in a subjunctive clause (is that the word?) ;

"subjunctive" refers to a mood of the verb often used for contrafactuals.
"Schade, dass er nicht mitkommen koennte" would be a use of this expression
in a "subjunctive clause" (i.e., a clause with a verb in the subjunctive).
"dependent clause" may be what you're looking for.

>but French idiom, which has invented the verb "venir avec", will use that 
>in places where it would be impossible in German or Dutch.

But it's the same verb only with different syntax, just like "avoir faim"
and "Hunger haben" are equivalent expressions morphologically, despite the
fact that they differ in the interrogative ("Est-ce que tu as faim" vs.
"Hast du Hunger?").

>>I've read recently of a similar calque in Alsatian French:  "aller voie"
>>for "weggehen."  Unfortunately, I don't have the reference handy.
>
>A very bad calque. "weg" (away) may be cognate with "Weg" (road, way),
>but they're two different words. They're even pronounced differently
>(at least in dialects I'm familiar with). "weg" /wEg/ "Weg" /weg/.

Well, so are "voie" (n.) and "voie" (adv.) in this example, they just
happen not to be distinguished by pronunciation.  And as you suspect,
"weg" and "Weg" are not distinguished by pronunciation in all dialects
(including, I think, Alsatian; I'll try to check on this).  I think it's
a perfectly good calque, every bit as good as "venir avec."
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
