Re: Preventatives

David G. Durand scripsit:

> I'm not sure I agree with Fodor (or whoever) as I find the second
> sentence perfectly normal.
Yes, that wasn't very well worded.  Try these:

	I shot him on Thursday; he died on Friday.
	a) Therefore, I caused him to die on Friday. [true]
	b) Therefore, I killed him on Friday. [false]

IOW, "kill" is not *simply* the causative of "die".

> Causatives with animate arguments also often carry a notion of intent,
> as in the distinction between kill and murder -- and that between
> "kill" and "cause to die". This seems a natural implication to me, and
> may be hard to avoid in any language spoken by humans.
I don't see it.  If I am driving and run over you by accident, I killed
you *and* I caused your death, but I certainly didn't murder you.
Murder requires intent, but killing does not.

> An outermost not() is maybe less often packed into its argument because
> of the availability of general negation -- although we have words like
> "abstain from x" for not(do(x)).
In the rather conlangish INTERCAL programming language, the verb
ABSTAIN FROM is available; ABSTAIN FROM <label> means "turn the labeled
statement into a no-op", whereas ABSTAIN FROM <verb>ING means "turn all
statements using that verb into no-ops."  The counteraction is REINSTATE.
I leave you all to think about ABSTAIN FROM ABSTAINING and ABSTAIN
FROM REINSTATING.

--
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun"       jcowan@reutershealth.com

Replies