From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> > According to deLancey's argument, the fundamental pattern is:
> > "agent CAUSES theme BE/BECOME state", for a total of 3 case roles
> > and 3 fundamental relations. That's where I'm metaphorically at now.
> >
> i disagree 100% to this (although i wish things were that simple). CAUS=
E does
> not take into account FINALITY :
> "the man causes the child to perceive an image" does not equate "the ma=
n
> shows the child an image". even Japanese get that point when deriving b=
oth
> verbs from the same root ;-).
>=20
> the causative states retrospectively that an unprescribed agent (the ma=
n or
> anybody else) causes a specific state subsequent (to perceive).
>=20
> the finality analysis states prospectively that a specific state or spe=
cific
> agent ("to show" or "the sign") contributes to an unspecified state
> subsequent : what does the child do when you show the image to him ? d=
oes he
> always perceive the image ? No, he is only intended to do so but may no=
t
> after all.
>=20
> we are human, we think in terms of causality AND finality : "pr=E9voir,=
c'est
> r=E9gner".
>=20
> (Tunu solves that issue with sheer genius, of course ;-) (JOKE!!!!!)
The "causer" role is a bit fuzzy. Direct vs. indirect,
and successful vs. attempted. Am I speaking to a lawyer?
I think it is meant to suggest ergativity, more or less.
Maybe "do/make" is the direct inverse of "because".