On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Tom Wier wrote:

> > Besides, what Comrie contends in the pages mentingioned (59-61 - I hope
> > I have the same edition that Tom does, second), is that there is a
> > 'continuum of control from agent to patient', which is expressed
> > differently in different languages. I can't find anything that might be
> > taken to mean that Comrie thinks English doesn't have a category like
> > indirect object.
> There's a very good chance that you have a later edition than I do.
> I looked, and found no edition marker on mine, and a most recent
> publication date of 1981 (I bought it in a used Scholarly books
> store here in Austin).

Yes, in that case you have the first edition, while I have the second.
There appear to be a lot of differences, and according to the blurb,
the second edition is about ten years more up-to-date.

> > (I've quite forgotten what exactly this thread was about, but
> > tangentially to other posts: anyone who wants to neatly divide syntax
> > and semantics into two separate water-tight compartments might take a
> > look at Wierzbicka's _The Semantics of Grammar_.
> Oh, I never meant to imply that they're completely unrelated --
> indeed, there are highly related, but distinct notions.  I was merely
> carrying on the generally accepted notion of the "autonomy of syntax":
> a sentence like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" makes no
> semantic sense whatsoever, but it makes perfect syntactic sense,
> and is a well-formed English sentence.

Well, I'd say that the notion of "autonomy of syntax" is getting
more and more challenged. (Also, linguistics is more fun with the
meaning included, even if scientists from other disciplines will
look down upon linguistics even more for being soft and squishy.)

Boudewijn Rempt  |