Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

> 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).

> (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.

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Denn wo Begriffe fehlen,
Da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein.
    -- Mephistopheles, in Goethe's _Faust_
========================================================