Re: monovalence
| From: | Amanda Babcock Furrow <langs@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, February 20, 2006, 22:11 |
|---|
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:49:48AM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> Anyway, I'm having difficulty determining the core argument that makes
> up the essence of any given verb. You can dig without a tool, for
> instance, but you have to dig *something*, a hole, a grave or a
> fortification, or whatever.
My approach to this (and I have given some thought to monovalent-verb-only
languages) would be to multiply the number of verbs. If necessary, you
could have separate dig-with and dig-a verbs, and when desired, say "He
dig-with shovel dig-a hole" or something.
Or, go with "dig-a" and use "wield" when you need to reference the tool...
Amanda