Print

Print


2012/11/14 Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

> I've been reading up on the whole path vs. manner thing with verbs in my
> quest to make Gravgaln feel more "right."  One paper I'm reading
> "Linguistic Typology in Motion Events: Path and Manner" by Iraide
> Ibarretxe-Antuņano (sorry I can't seem to find the date, but looks like it
> might be 2002 or 3 judging by the bib.) gives an interesting breakdown of
> "motion events" into six basic semantic elements (borrowed from Talmy,
> 1985):
>
> I. Figure -- the moving object
> II. Ground -- entity or entities the Figure moves in relation to
> III. Path -- course and/or trajectory of the Figure
> IV. Motion -- the presence of motion per se
> V. Manner -- the way in which the motion is performed
> VI. Cause -- what originated the motion
>

Nice!

My strategy is to have separate verbs for each feature:

x_1 {comes-from} x_2 {goes-to} x_3 {caused-by} x_4 {by-transportation} x-5

---

I have another question related to this one:

Do you guys usually allow verbs that can have nouns, events or other verbs
as arguments?
Or do you prefer to have different verbs for each type of argument?

For instance, the verb "to like" can have, as its object,

(1) a noun: "I like ice cream.";
(2) an event: "I like that you know it.";
(3) another verb: "I like to swim.".

I think that they could be three different verbs. There are verbs that only
allow nouns as arguments (eat, drink, build, etc.), others that only allow
events (hope, think, etc.) and others that only allow other verbs (must,
can, might, etc. [modal verbs]).

As I'm interesting in logauxlanging, I would like to know which strategy
would fit better:

(A) having different verbs;
(B) simply using the same verb;
(C) using the same verb and adding particles that turns events into nouns
or vice-versa.

Another problem is that sometimes the subject can be an event too...