Re: Changing worldviews with language (LONG)

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
agent-patient.

--
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim  John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust?   jcowan@reutershealth.com
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum,         http://www.reutershealth.com
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.     http://www.ccil.org/cowan
        --author unknown to me; any suggestions?

Reply