From: "H. S. Teoh" <[log in to unmask]>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:10:39PM -0500, Roger Mills wrote:
> [snip]
> > There was also an approach roughly like the following, an attempt to analyze
> > lexical items into component parts (as best I remember it)--
> >
> > KNOW: speaker believes [X is true]-- and X _is_ true
> > BELIEVE: speaker believes [X is true]-- but X may/may not be true
> > CLAIM: speaker believes and says [X is true]-- but X is not true
> >
> > .......? :  speaker says [X did Y] -- and it is true that X did Y

"report", probably.

> > ACCUSE:   Speaker says [X did Y] -- may/may not be true
> > BLAME:  Speaker believes [X did Y]-- may/may not be true
> The problem is, some words just aren't precise enough, and just can't be
> *made* precise enough. It often comes down to a matter of interpretation
> and personal opinion. For example, BLAME to me means speaker says X, but X
> may not be true. The difference between BLAME and ACCUSE, is that ACCUSE
> is more emphatic.
> This is of course my own analysis; I'm sure others will break it down in
> different ways.

Yup.  For me, both "blame" and "accuse" include the idea that X's doing Y is a
bad thing; "accuse" also has that the accuser is in a "more righteous" position
trying to examine the truth.

Incidentally, if X = the blamed/accused = the speaker, usually it includes that
X says he didn't do it.

> > To some extent, BUY/SELL and LEND/BORROW are similar, and it is not
> > surprising that some languages use a single root for each.
> Which causes endless confusion with L2 English speakers, esp. those from
> Chinese backgrounds, who keep saying that somebody "borrowed" something
> *to* them, and that they "lent" something *from* someone.

Heh, L2 English speakers? L1 speakers are known to do it too, at least with