From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
>=20
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 05/06/99 19:26:06 , Charles a =E9crit :
> > The concept of "having" or "generalized possession" is in English
> > "'s" and "of" and other genitive constructions; this is convenient,
> > but sometimes we get lost taking such short-cuts.
> >
> pardon me jeune homme, i have to say french linguists consider "genitiv=
e" as
> the attributive form of a substantive, not as "having" or anything else=
fuzzy
> like that. would you hint they are wrong ? :-)
I've been experimentally constructing/analyzing verbs
with this pattern: XXX has YYY is ZZZ ... ZZZ does-YYY to-XXX
The "has" is attributing and the "is" is equating.
A genitive "XXX has YYY" or "YYY of XXX" means that
one thing has some binary relation with another.
So it may be fuzzy, but it's there ...
http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/publish/komet/gen-um/node20.html
http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/publish/komet/gen-um/node26.html
> my own belief (my own feeling) is
> that there are "role classes" that you can sort out by semantic fields.=
the
> evidence for that are the substantives derived from verbs. role and asp=
ect
> are tightly related in words like "building", "food", "start", "product=
",
> "procedure", etc. try and classify all of them : you'll get as many rol=
es as
> i got. i'd like to add that tunuans eat human flesh mainly because ther=
e is
> no belgian dioxin in it.
Semantic lexemes can be distinguished from grammatical morphemes:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/homepage.html#lexmorph
"But there ARE no Such Things as Words!" ... Jabberwocky again.
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/words.html