Elements of the grammar of space in Ewe

Ameka, Felix K.; Essegbey, James

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511486753.011

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Ewe encodes general locative relations in the verb le 'be.at' (in addition to case markers that appear on the Ground noun). This is illustrated in (3) (adapted from Ameka and Essegbey [2006]). …”

Section: ) Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locative expressions in signed languages: a view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD)

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: ) Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locative expressions in signed languages: a view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD)

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Like in its other uses, the two variants are used for present vs. non-present situations respectively (see e.g. Ameka 1995, 1999aand Ameka and Essegbey 2006. Perhaps because it is the one verb common to the two constructions it has received more attention in the literature and the other verbs are either ignored or These verbs take as their complement an aspectual phrase headed by the PROGressive or PROSPective aspect markers (cf.…”

Section: (5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfective constructions: Progressive and prospective in Ewe and Dangme

Ameka

Dakubu²

2008

Studies in Language Companion Series

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates an important feature common to Ewe and Dangme, but not shared with such Kwa languages as Akan or Ga, namely a periphrastic construction commonly having "progressive" and/or "prospective" meaning, in which the finite verb is selected from a very small set and takes a complement consisting of the event-naming verb that is preceded by its Object and followed either by a construction-specific suffix (Dangme) or one of two characteristic morphemes (Ewe). The finite verb, the post-event-verb morpheme, or both, generally have spatial features. The paper begins with a basic comparative description of the simple verb in the two languages, before proceeding to a detailed description of the progressive and prospective constructions in Ewe, followed by a comparably detailed description of the imperfective construction in Dangme. It is concluded that in both languages we have to do with an elaboration of the construction type V + nominalized NP Complement, which exists throughout the lower Volta Basin in many forms, if not always this one. Despite surface similarities the two languages exhibit important differences in both the semantic range of the construction and its syntax, such that it is likely that in this respect each language has developed independently of the other.

show abstract

“…It is based on a specialisation of the basic locative construction with the postposition specified as dzí 'upper.surface, top' (see Ameka and Essegbey 2006). The operator verb is the suppletive locative verb set le 'be.at:PRES' and nѐ 'be.at:NPRES'.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One could speculate that the m form is the distal deictic that is also used in presentational constructions in Anlo. For example, yém '3SG-DISTDEIC' 'That's it' (see Ameka and Essegbey 2006) 3 The illocutionary meaning of the simple jussive construction can be roughly paraphrased as follows, inspired by The Natural Semantic Metalanguge (NSM) approach of reductive paraphrase (see e.g. Wierzbicka 1988): 3 rd person Subject né VP I want something to happen (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%