[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] On dyads and triads

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:28:01 -0400
Message-id: <452a4b5ef78bc8568e00561f2f6b6f88.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, March 30, 2013 10:03, Simon Spero wrote:
> ...
> "English Sentences Without Overt Grammatical
> [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
> 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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>