Re: Changing worldviews with language (LONG)
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 4, 2002, 13:55|
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 08:41:36AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> H. S. Teoh scripsit:
> > > An argument is a core argument if the predicate insists on having it.
> > Interesting. I suppose in light of this, Ebisedian has no core arguments,
> > since everything is optional, and things clear from context are usually
> > freely elided.
> Well, not exactly. In Lojban too, anything clear from context can be
> elided, but there is still a sharp distinction between core and
> non-core arguments. In English (which is not the best language for
> exemplifying these things), you can say "John ate", which suggests that
> the patient argument is not required by the "eat" predicate. In fact,
> however, this is short for "John ate something" -- there is no concept
> in English of eating-without-an-eatee. So the valency of "eat" is
Hmm. But that still doesn't explain how Ebisedian verbs work. Or perhaps I
should say that all Ebisedian verbs have the same valency, that of all
five noun cases? Or maybe I'm totally missing the point (as usual). :-P
Curiosity kills the cat. Moral: don't be the cat.