Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

And Rosta <a.rosta@...> writes:

> Actually, "I have a dog" = "I am with a dog", not "A dog is with me".
>
> > Would you care to say what arguments? It sounds interesting ...
>
> In brief, the relevant subtypes of HAVE and WITH have the same
> semantics, the same relatively unusual complementation
>
>   the man with his hands in his pockets
>   the man has his hands in his pockets
Urgl.  I don't have `with' yet.  But now I might introduce both at the
same time. :-))

I think this is a really good way of doing it in my language, since I
have to express `with' by using verbs.  And `with' and `to have'
really look a perfect pair to be unified.

To see how it works for other things, look at `with' in instrumental
meaning, which is expressed like using `to use'.  With that verb,
assignment of agentive case is easy:

It would work like this:
    I      eat meal           use chop-sticks.
    [I.AGT     mean.PAT].AGT      chop-sticks.PAT

Note that this is no SVC (serial verb construction) as it would be in
Mandarin (wo yong kuaizi chi fan).  It literally translates to

    `my meal-eating uses chop-sticks'
or  `I, (who is) using chop-sticks, eat a meal'

(These cannot be distinguished without using additional particles).

How would you assign cases for `with'?

   with: agent=experiencer?

This would be the way I do it with `to love'.  Would you say that `with'
has the same structure as `to love'?

Would be like:

   I      with money.
   I.AGT       money.PAT
   I have money.

   I      love money.
   I.AGT       money.PAT
   I love money.

From my point of view, this looks feasible.

**Henrik