Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 22/06/99 18:55:01 , Charles a =E9crit :
> > > I pay the-cashier to-buy the-book.
> =20
> > i pay man-cash (and i) buy book
> =20
> Good English but bad serial-verb-Construction. Jamming the verbs
> together makes them fuse into something different than conjunction.
> The buying-paying is a single act with three actors. IIUC.
definitely. retrospectively you know that the implied finality of this=20
payment is to buy (for). you cannot buy without paying. that's what my "and"=20
was meant to induce here. not fish "and" chips.
=20
> > > I pay the-writer to-write the-book.
> =20
> > i pay man-write so he write book.
> =20
> Almost the same except there is a kind of switch-reference
> thing happening there,=20
same than above, except that the finality is not always true. you always pay=20
to buy things, but these things may be fish and chips as well as a writer's=20
services. that is what my "so" stood for.
which I don't quite understand
> because nothing I found on the web describes this well.
>
my "bound finality" is translated in natlangs either as concomittancy=20
(japanese "haratte kau") or compound (english "to pay for").
> > you may want to tell from one another :
> > concomittance and finality (and, so)
> =20
> I am tempted to replace all conjunctions with verbs,
> just to be radical, whether it is possible or not.
> =20
always possible imho, except that in this case you miss the points i stated=20
above and then you get stuck in ditransitivity.
> > successive actors (nouns, verbs, clauses)
> =20
> Same for clauses. I want to push everything into SVC's.
> =20
> > realis and irrealis (so that, in order to)
> >=20
> > or rather, different degrees inbetween these "extremals" ;-)
> =20
> I should-will obtain some adverbs. Many are just weakened verbs.
> =20
indeed.