H. S. Teoh scripsit:

> My point then, was that the arguments of verbs with different valencies
> may not necessarily map to each other in an obvious way (or at all). For
> example, consider three verbs of differing valencies:
> a)      sit:    (1) the person/thing which sits

Lojban actually reckons this to have two places, the sitter and the sat-upon
surface.  But your point is sound.

> b)      love:   (1) the lover (2) the object of love
> c)      give:   (1) the giver (2) the thing given (3) the recipient
> Nothing says that (a)(1) is the same as (a)(2), or that (b)(2) is the same
> as (c)(2). It could easily be the case, in a particular language, that
> (a)(1) corresponds with (b)(2), and (b)(2) corresponds with (c)(3).

Indeed, Lojban abstains altogether from identifying any place of one predicate
with any other place of another: they are simply ordered, like arguments to
function calls.

> The mappings for "see" may seem odd, but only because the accusative
> mindset is used to thinking about agents and patients. In Ebisedian,
> agents and patients are irrelevant; the semantically important concepts
> are source and destination: from whence did the event originate, and to
> what is it directed at, rather than who/what did it, and who/what
> underwent it.

Well, this requires a fairly sophisticated world view.  Even Aristotle still
believed that seeing was a matter of something emerging from the eyes, rather
than entering them, IIRC.  (Of course, it may well be that he believed
that because he was a victim of Whorfian mind-lock.)

One Word to write them all,             John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
  One Access to find them,    
One Excel to count them all,  
  And thus to Windows bind them.                --Mike Champion