On Sat, March 30, 2013 10:03, Simon Spero wrote:
> ...
> "English Sentences Without Overt Grammatical
>
>Subjects<http://douglemoine.com/english-sentences-without-overt-grammatical-subjects/>"
> [Parental Advisory - Explicit Content] examined several constructions in
> English where, contrary to then prevailing transformational theory, did
> not appear to have an underlying subject in the deep structure. (01)
The examples below use the English word "give" (#$Give-TheWord)
with different senses. These do not map to #$TransferringPossession.
A random dictionary i just grabbed has 54 definitions of "give" as a verb.
Of course, many of the definitions are related -- many came by analogy
to the basic meaning; depending upon how close the analogy is, more
or less of the properties of the basic meaning. (02)
The below is a linguistic exercise. Its main utility for this forum is
to serve as a warning that one should not establish 1-1 mappings
between NL words and terms in a formal ontology. In almost all
cases such a mapping would be n-n. (03)
Below you say that "these are different senses/micro-senses of
the same *give*". If by "*give*", you mean #$Give-TheWord,
i agree. But if you are referring to something semantic, i would
suggest that they are not THE SAME *give*. (04)
You refer below to "two identical events occupying the same regions of ...
space-time". If they are *identical*, in what way is there more than
one? Doesn't "identical" mean they have the same identity criteria? (05)
-- doug foxvog (06)
> By analogy, in: (07)
> (1) I don't give a damn (about) what Pierce said. (08)
> it is hard to infer an elided recipient of what the giver (the utterer)
> is giving (a damn about what Pierce said).
>
> Similarly in:
>
> (2) I give up.
> (3) I give up (all hope of understanding this subject).
> (3a) *I give up (all hope of understanding this subject) to Mary.
>
> There is an an animate agent, and an explicit or elided theme, but as
> the unacceptability of (3a) suggests, there is no recipient.
>
> With:
>
> (4) This beautiful weather gives me a happy feeling.
> (5) This beautiful weather gives a happy feeling to me.
>
> We have an animate recipient, but do not have an animate agent
> (unless you wish to interpret the construction as assigning animacy
> metaphorically to *this beautiful weather *).
>
> Slightly more complex are:
>
> (6) I give in.
> (7) I give in to sin.
>
> but they might be construed similarly to (2) and (3).
>
> There is, of course, the canonical form
>
> (8) Kim gave Sandy the ball.
> (9) Kim gave the ball to Sandy.
>
> In these constructions, there is a common core semantics, that one or
> more
> things gain or lose something.
>
> In (2,3) the agent is losing hope, but there is nothing that gains it.
> In (4,5) the recipient is gaining a happy feeling, but the beautiful
> weather loses nothing.
> in (8,9) the agent is losing a ball, and the recipient is gaining it.
>
> The presence of this weak but common core suggests that these are
> different senses/micro-senses of the same *give* ;
> this presents some challenges to
> the mandatory requirements.
>
> Also, note that when trying to formulate identity criteria for Events,
> Quine
> suggested, and Davidson partially
>
>accepted<http://www.worldcat.org/title/essays-on-davidson-actions-and-events/oclc/11134408>,
> the necessity of the two identical events occupying the same regions of
> space and time/space-time. If this is true, a case must be made for these
> identity criteria being second-class properties of an event.
>
> Simon (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|