Re: CHAT drinking soup: (was: Malat (on behalf of Garrett))

Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> Laurie Gerholz wrote:
> > No, not if it was accidental. But I wouldn't call it "drink" if actual
> > beverages were ingested accidentally. Imagine the unpleasant scenario of
> > a frat party where an unlucky pledge has alcohol forcibly poured into
> > him. I'd say that the pledge was forced to "swallow", as you suggest,
> > but I wouldn't use the verb "drink" unless there was volition involved.
> > I guess I never perceived it as a metaphorical use.
>
> Hmm, "he was forced to drink alcohol", "he was forced to swallow
> alcohol".  I'd use "drink", altho "swallow" doesn't sound all that odd
> to me.  I don't think that volitional has anything to do with my usage
> of "drink", it's entirely the _manner_ in which the substance is
> ingested and the _substance_ itself (liquid) - it has to be something
> that is normally ingested either to sustain life (e.g., water, milk,
> etc.), or harmless (well, relatively harmless), non-medicinal substances
> (e.g., soda, alcoholic beverages).
I'm really enjoying this exploration of semantic space. This discussion
has required me to look at my own semantic distinctions pretty closely.

I think my definition works out something like "to voluntarily ingest a
liquid by mouth". The volition is there, and the liquid substance, but
not the nature of the substance. So drinking water, drinking wine,
drinking cough syrup and drinking hemlock tea are all equally correct
and literal to me.

Even drinking under duress is still "to drink". To get horrendously
melodramatic for a moment: "Drink that hemlock tea or I'll shoot your
aged mother!" Grammatically and semantically (if not morally) this
sounds correct.
This also would qualify as your "forced to drink" below; the victim,
while under horrible persuasion, is still lifting that teacup himself.

> The fact that one can "drink" to the
> point of alcohol poisoning suggests that there's something I'm
> overlooking - perhaps it's just that alcohol is normally harmless (in
> the short run).  I'd say that volitional drinking of poisoning is
> metaphorical, but, again, perhaps I'm overlooking something.  It's just
> not a volitional distinction, as I could say that someone was "forced to
> drink" something, like alcohol.
>
I'll point out a distinction here -- in my example of the frat party, I
was picturing the poor pledge being bodily held down, and his nose held
so he had to swallow the beer. The pledge did not voluntarily act to
take the liquid, so it was not "to drink". Conversely, I've heard of
rare cases where someone manages to stay semi-conscious while drinking
alcohol long enough to ingest a fatal dose. Because the person is still
acting (rather than being acted upon) I'd call that "drinking to the
point of alcohol poisoning".

And after all this fine dicing of semantic space, we'll probably still
find some usage for me that doesn't fit with my definition above.

Your turn.

Laurie
milo@winternet.com