On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:59:58 +0100, takatunu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >It a Great website designed like a book you can browse. Downloaded it all to >read it sipping my coffee :-) > >I am just a bit disappointed with the philosophical viewpoint expressed >there because it is quite academically "PC"--like your example of the >opening door, key, John, etc. Why say that the semantic roles of the key and >of the door have a connection with each other? They have one on the basis of >the English verb "to open" because in the English language the verb "to >open" may also refer to the continuum of "to unlock in order to allow the >door to open" but in languages I do know, the key unlocks the door while the >door moves on its hinge or groove. The key is not an instrument to move the >door open so the key is not an instrument of the lexy "to open". Same with >the room or house or other structure to which the door pertains which >"opens" as well in English, "opening on a room", i.e., making it accessible, >etc. > >Also in many natlangs the semantic role of "recipient" may be subdivided >according to the preexisting or resulting underlying behaviour of the >arguments: some "recipients" are expected to interact as partners, some >others to "react" (they are expected to understand, yield, help), some to >change and some to be mere patients (they incorporate the item they receive >or are planted in or taught to, or just are mocked or yelled at.) Because >the expected respective behaviours of all these "recipients" are considered >quite different from each other, these natlangs break down the English >continuum phrase (made of a verb and prepositions drawing their meaning from >the continuum underlying the verb) into a chain of independent serial >predicates like give-transfer-receive, talk-listen, order-aim-obey, >judge-undergo, consume-make-result, etc.. Isn't it a bit artificial to >consider that "receive", "listen" and "obey" are the same "recipient roles" >just because in languages like English the verbs "to tell", "to give", "to >order" use a single preposition or a single case to express them all? Thanks for your comments. The reason the site reads like a book is because my original conception 20+ years ago for presenting the grammar was as a book (since there was no WWW of course); I preserved the chapter-based format because it seemed easier to organize things that way. As for your critique on the semantic role relations, I'm fascinated by the subtlety to which you think it should be taken. I thought I'd already "sub-divided" the usual semantic roles you see from case grammar into lower level divisions (e.g., the distinction between my Absolutive vs. Inducive case, or my Ergative vs. Effectuative case), but had not deeply considered subdividing the Experiencer role. I can only say two things, one subjective, the other practical: 1) perhaps overt sub-delineations of the Experiencer role aren't necessary if the would-be sub-delineations themselves are mutually exclusive. So if the "obey" schema takes only one kind of experiencer, and the "listen" schema takes a different kind, but together they both qualify as Experiencers in general (i.e., party undergoing an unwilled affective experience whether self-induced, self- enabled, etc.) then can't the overt case-marking simply point to the higher- level delineation and not the sub-delineations? 2) Given that the 9-by-9 morpho-phonological sheme for case marking (nine mutations of the second consonantal radical times nine vowel-infix mutations) limits the number of cases to 81, well, I would run out of room for case-marking if I started adding more cases at this point.