Re: Verbs and More Verbs

Jim Grossmann <steven@...> wrote:
>>>
First things first:   In the sentence "John exited the building," what
semantic role does "John" play?   Is he an agent?   Is he an experiencer?
If he's something else, what's the name of that role?
<<<
i'd call him a subject and "to exit" a dynamic state verb incorporating a
spatial relation.
you get plenty of those like that: "the water fills out the glass" and "the boat
crosses the channel".

>>>
Still not sure what role telicity might play in determining the number and
nature of a verb's arguments.   "Examine" is atelic because one could
logically, if not practically, do it indefinitely.   "Sever" is telic
because, logically, the act it stands for entails its own completion.   Both
take the same number or arguments AFAIK.  I can't think of any examples in
which telicity affects the number of arguments a verb has, but I could be
missing something.
<<<
RM dismisses telicity in his system precisely because he says it doesn't change
the number of arguments of the verb as you say too. he says this is possible
because telic and atelic arguments are mutually exclusive. this may hold true in
english. you say: "i grind the cereal (into flour)", "i grind flour (from
cereal)". "cereal" is an atelic patient and "flour" is a telic focus (aka
"resultive pattern") and they never come together in a phrase without a
preposition. try also "to plant flowers in the garden/to plant the garden with
flowers" and "to sculpt a statue from wood/to sculpt a piece of wood into a
statue" (btw, those are two transitive verbs with opposite directions.) but you
could imagine a lang where atelic patient and telic focus co-occur in a phrase.
my conlang does anyway. maybe Lojban does that? "grind X into Y via Z"--right,
John? :)

There is also the very interesting case of "double-focus" verbs: "she call him
an idiot", "she estimates its length up to one meter", etc. where the direct
object is the patient of the second object as well as the focus of the subject :
"he (patient) is idiot" // "she (agent) calls him (focus) an idiot (focus)."
this is different from "she (agent) calls [he (patient) is idiot] (focus). (my
(french) books call those focuses "topic" and "pattern")

The object of "examine" is an atelic focus while the object of "sever" is a
telic patient.

>>>
I've heard some interesting terms lately that I don't understand yet:
"exotropic," "endotropic," "exoactive," "endoactive," "effective verb,"
"affective verb."   I'm looking forward to further elaboration on the
meanings of these terms.  Also need to know about natlang links that feature
their use.
<<<
Regarding "effective", i might be wrong but that's how i understand it:
"effective" means that the action "effects" the object: the object is a patient.

some transitive verbs don't effect the object--Rick Morneaus says the object is
a focus: i sing a song, i call him, i know that, etc.
some other transitive verbs effect the object in a known way--RM calls the
object a patient: i break it, i paint it, i cut it, etc.
some other transitive verbs effect the object in an unknown way--RM calls the
object a patient: i kick him, etc.
some other transitive verbs effect the object but Morneau calls the object a
focus: i eat, i write, etc. (these are in my opinion verbs with "hidden"
telicity)
some other transitive verbs may or not effect the patient--RM still calls their
object a patient: to kick, to smash, to pat, etc.
some other transitive verbs are dubious: you could either consider they effect
or they don't effect the object--RM classifies their object as focus or patient
according to rules too long to explain here: the cover covers the bed, i judge
him, water fills the glass, to plant trees, etc.
that's how RM came to mix up all "result", "pattern", "reference", "topic", etc.
into a single category he calls a "focus".

I don't know any natlang tagging focus and patient objects differently. but
indonesian tags passive verbs differently depending on whether he subject is a
patient or a focus:
One passive tag is used for any passive subject (di-): the mountain (focus) is
seen: gunung dilihat ; the dog (patient) is beaten up: anjing dipukul ; the
letter (patient when under writing? focus when written up?) is written: surat
ditulis.
Another for focus subject only (ke-an): the mountain (focus) is seen: gunung
kelihatan.
A third for stative or resultative passive (ter-): the mountain (focus) is seen:
gunung terlihat ; the letter (focus) is written up: surat tertulis.
But the whole system is not very consistent.

The interesting thing is that verbs that i feel RM's system doesn't deal OK with
are also confusing in indonesian:
the ricepaddy (patient? focus?) is planted: sawah ditanami.
the rice (patient? focus?) is planted: tumbuhan ditanami.
Those annoying verbs are those with a spatial relation between inanimate items
and also those where the final aim ("hidden telicity") is not clear: you could
either plant the garden to adorn it or to grow plants. that's why i completed
those verbs with prepositions like bad english does: the paddy is planted into
// the plant is planted with.

Mathias
www.geocities.com/kalatunu/index.htm