What do you mean by 'simplified'? I'm not familiar with the history of Russian.
To think in Latin
- Thread starter meisenimverbis
- Start date
The Russian language itself wasn't simplified. The reform removed some letters which weren't needed anymore.
For me, it would be far better for Latin to have developed more prepositions, with the deflections. It seems when the Romance languages came to be, prepositions provided a step forwards to more simplicity. My guess is (and I may be wrong) that, when the Roman world disintegrated, the education system suffered a lot. So, first Latin began to deviate from Classical, and then towards dialects and derived languages.
It's not just that. Formal education had anyway only been available to a relatively small elite. Languages change, and Latin also had spread over a large teritory and become the second and later fist language of peoples who had spoken different languages before. This all contributed to the development.
I don't know what you mean by the term 'with the deflections' ('instead of inflection'?), but I don't think there is anything inherently easier or simpler about prepositions than cases. Perhaps your native language uses prepositions rather than cases, which makes this system seem easier to you, but you must see that this is a purely subjective viewpoint.
I couldn't say which system I find easier overall, but I think prepositions are among the trickiest things to master in a language, because their use can be highly idiomatic.
There isn't always an obvious or logical reason why one preposition is preferred over another; this or that one is preferred just because that's the path usage chose to take.
Why do you say "look me in the eye" and not "look me into the eye"? Who knows?
Why do you say "je suis à la maison" rather than "je suis en la maison"? Just because.
Sometimes also the use of different prepositions with the same verb brings different shades of meaning that aren't obvious from the intrinsic meaning of the preposition. Good luck guessing the difference between "look at" and "look to" if you're unfamiliar with the idiom and only know the individual words.
There isn't always an obvious or logical reason why one preposition is preferred over another; this or that one is preferred just because that's the path usage chose to take.
Why do you say "look me in the eye" and not "look me into the eye"? Who knows?
Why do you say "je suis à la maison" rather than "je suis en la maison"? Just because.
Sometimes also the use of different prepositions with the same verb brings different shades of meaning that aren't obvious from the intrinsic meaning of the preposition. Good luck guessing the difference between "look at" and "look to" if you're unfamiliar with the idiom and only know the individual words.
For that matter, why do you say "look me" at all in this expression?
Of course the question remains why the transitive use survived where there is a "complement specifying the focus of the gaze" (the OED's words) and not elsewhere. It's the idiomatic randomness again. Maybe people just disliked two prepositional phrases in a row.
I'd suppose that je suis à la maison, “I'm at home” uses maison as a metaphor for a familiarly place, for where I use to live or to stay, rather than the material building in itself. I wouldn't say je suis à la maison when I entered in a house where I am not invited to live or to stay. I can be à la maison not just in a house, but in a field, in the street or in a forest where I am accustomed to spend time too, in my fabric or in a building where I live even if it isn't a house (but a flat, a castle, a mobile home...).
While je suis en la maison or je suis dans la maison (both can be said albeit the latter is more common), “I'm in the house” uses maison as the literal meaning of a building, within which I am. Such maison isn't necessarily were I stay or where I live. I can be unwelcome in (dans) someone else' house, while it would be odd to be, in such case à la maison.
As I am within the material house, I say « en la maison » or « dans la maison ».
As I am not really within “home”, which isn't really a material concept, I say « à la maison ».
Last edited:
I agree with that distinction regarding "à" vs. "dans". "Je suis en la maison" would sound odd to me in any context, but I concede that it may be acceptable in an archaic style, perhaps.
The question remains, though, why is it like that? There's nothing in the intrinsic meaning of "à" and "dans" or "en" to lead to such a distinction. So I take it as "idiomatic randomness", where you just have to be aware of usage.
The question remains, though, why is it like that? There's nothing in the intrinsic meaning of "à" and "dans" or "en" to lead to such a distinction. So I take it as "idiomatic randomness", where you just have to be aware of usage.
En and dans mean that you are “on” or “within”.
It materialises the space. Être en or dans la maison specifically means to be within the house.
I agree that à doesn't have an intrinsic meaning that would exclude that outcome, but it is rather used as a non-en or as a non-dans, I'd suppose than for its proper intrinsic value.
As for the alternance between à, en and dans: « Dans le compl. circ. de lieu [...] − Concurrence à / en.
Ses causes : . les orig. lat. de à, qui lui donnaient les valeurs de en < in et notamment celles du locatif, avec idée de pénétration. − On sait que le lat. class. opposait esse in urbe “être en ville” ou “à la ville”, d'une part à ire in urbem “aller en ville” (avec franchissement d'une limite et pénétration) et d'autre part à ire ad urbem “aller vers la ville” ou “à la ville” (avec tout au plus atteinte de la limite mais sans pénétration).
Il est évident que la prép. ad s'imposait quand la pénétration était inconcevable : cas d'obj. n'ayant pas d'intériorité accessible (ire ad januam “aller vers la porte” ou “à la porte” ; cas des pers. (ire ad aliquem “aller vers qqn” ou “à qqn”)). Le lat. vulg. avait simplifié ce système d'oppos. trop subtiles et avait fini par dire indifféremment d'une part, ire in ou ad urbem “aller vers la ville”, “à la ville”, “en ville” [...]
un accident phonét. − On sait que phonétiquement *à le donne au, mais que de même *en le donne el, eu, ou et risque ainsi de se confondre avec au. [...]
Ses manifestations : . devant les subst. masc. à initiale vocalique (enfer) et les subst. fém. (forêt) qui appellent une prép. ayant le sens de “à l'intérieur de”, en s'est imposé au prix du sacrifice de l'art., tandis que au supplantait apparemment en − qu'en fait il contient − devant les subst. masc. à initiale consonantique : cf. en forêt, en enfer, mais au bois, au paradis ; . devant les subst. masc. à initiale vocalique (hôtel) ou les subst. fém. (maison, tête) devant lesquels la prép. peut signifier soit l'approche, soit la pénétration, l'alternance en / à est possible : à la maison / en maison de [...]
Concurrence à / dans, sur, vers : . La prép. dans s'impose vers le mil. du xvi[sup]e[/sup] s. [...] et tend à supplanter à devant les subst. ou apr. des verbes appelant une prép. signifiant “à l'intérieur de”... » (Trésor.).
Last edited:
The à versus dans/en seems to be to have so many particularities that it's impossible to make a universal rule. It pales in comparison to à versus de with verbs, though, which seems to be completely idiomatic in most cases. I remember reading that there is supposed to be a difference between à nouveau and de nouveau but that most people don't maintain it and just use one or the other. Am I correct in thinking that de nouveau just means "again" and à nouveau is "again, but in a different manner?"
I agree that cases are easier than prepositions when learning a foreign language. Look how straightforward the Latin locative (and corresponding use of the accusative and ablative without prepositions) is compared the system of prepositions for showing location in French or English. For people who grow up speaking these languages, though, it's not hard.
Not that anyone here is suggesting this, but I get tired of the idea that Latin dropped cases because they were too hard, too complicated, or unnatural, rather than because phonological change made them indistinct, and therefore useless. I imagine this is also why the English subjunctive has all but disappeared.
I agree that cases are easier than prepositions when learning a foreign language. Look how straightforward the Latin locative (and corresponding use of the accusative and ablative without prepositions) is compared the system of prepositions for showing location in French or English. For people who grow up speaking these languages, though, it's not hard.
Not that anyone here is suggesting this, but I get tired of the idea that Latin dropped cases because they were too hard, too complicated, or unnatural, rather than because phonological change made them indistinct, and therefore useless. I imagine this is also why the English subjunctive has all but disappeared.
The locative exists only in a few words, though, apart from names of cities.
As a matter of fact, Latin has a rather similar distinction to the French one explained above regarding "à la maison" vs. "dans la maison." Generally, domi = à la maison, at home; in domo = dans la maison, in the house.
Yes, I was just using it just as an example. Isn’t it true that the Classical Latin locative is a remnant of the earlier language where the locative was more generally used?
Yes.
The answer would be "looking into" is deeper but still correct (more so if it's hypnotism).
The Spanish students used to hate so-called phrasal verbs, such as get by, get through, get into.