Analysing `give':
* Gary Shannon said on 2003-12-23 06:11:16 +0100
> --- Javier BF <uaxuctum@...> wrote:
> > > I was wondering is there are any conlangs that do without certain
> > > verbs by decomposing them into smaller pieces.
> >
> > In the above example, I don't think you can completely substitute
> > "own" for "give" without introducing a new semantic nuance, because
> > "give" doesn't necessarily imply a change of ownership.
>
> <snip>
Have a look at the wonderful world of non-English... as for my L1:
> I imagine it would take a lot of verbs to replace "give." If John and
> Mary are in the Library and he takes a book off the shelf and GIVES it
> to her, there is no change of ownership.
With give-equivalent
> If he GIVES her a funny look,
Not with give-equivalent
> and then GIVES her a hand with her homework
Not with give-equivalent
> she might GIVE him a hug and a kiss in return,
With give-equivalent
> not realizing that he might GIVE her his cold.
Own word for this but it is usually seen from the other end:
he RECEIVED his cold from her.
> Then there's GIVE UP,
With give-equivalent
> and GIVE IN, and GIVE a damn, GIVE these brave contestants a big hand
> folks,
Not with give-equivalent
> that axle bearing has too much GIVE in it,
Here we use a noun derived from `to go' (or from the same root as to
go...)
> and it's a GIVEN that there are probably a dozen more.
With give-equivalent
It should be mentioned that some people do use give for all these but
that is being anglified, so fie, fo, fum!
> Obviously any truly precise language would have a different term for
> each of those varied meanings.
English is famous for its amount of set phrases and idioms :) I'll
probably be looking into this (set phrases, not necessarily in English)
a little for my Masters thesis.
t., who sometimes code switches English/Norwegian :(