Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 15/09/99 16:12:02 , vous avez =E9crit :
> > yes. but conversely ti-nyakplak-a or whatever ti-coyote-a is
> morphologically
> > a verb but semantically not.
> =20
> That's what I thought and what I'm doubting the more I think of it. Is it
> semantically not? Who says it isn't? I, because it isn't in my language? =
In
> howfar is my perception of the world a part of the problem?
> =20
hmm. yeah. what i've learned is that there is
an entity somewhere behaving somehow.
no need to use syntax to get that go+coyote
suggests a coyote going her way or an action
of going taking the "shape" of a coyote.
which one "is" the entity and which one "is" the
behaviour doesn't change much here.
but try to figure out vehicle+shelter.
i guess you need to point which one "is" what.
well, i do. don't you ?
mathias