Re: † † † Disambiguation of arg umen t reference

Fuscian wrote:

<<Well, I just did a little googling on the matter. It seems, according to
SIL's glossary, that "core" simply means anything that is subj, dir obj, or
ind obj. That was one idea I had in my head, anyway. I'm having second
thoughts about "to the store" being core though, because "to" is more
allative than dative there, and perhaps should be considered differently
What we were both getting at, in different ways, was, I think, the notion of
complements, i.e., items that are obligatory. But something can be obligatory
and not be core, e.g.... the place argument after "put". It is neither a
subject nor an in/direct object, but it is obligatory, so it is an oblique
complement.>>

Ohhhhhh...   Okay.   My understanding was that if something was obligatory,
it, therefore, was core.   If that's not the case, though, what purpose does
the core/noncore distinction serve?   Do languages fundamentally treat "to
the store" differently depending on whether what comes before it is "I'm
going" or "I gave books"?   Seems to me like both are obligatory, but one's
dative; one's allative.   But does that matter...?   Now I'm confused.

-David

"imDeziZejDekp2wilDez ZejDekkinel..."
"You can celebrate anything you want..."
               -John Lennon