Jasp:
> And:
> > > > > Semantics: the prototypical subject is responsible for the event
> (And's
> > > > > archagonist). The event-type is a state - the property of being such
> > > > > that the event described is hard or difficult.
> > > >
> > > >The second sentence is unnecessary; it follows Griceanly from the
> first.
> > >
> > > I should say rather that the first is unnecessary, following
> > > (meta!)force-dynamically from the second. I mean, the referent of the
> middle
> > > is a state (the property of...). The referent of the subject of a word
> > > referring to a state is (always) the thing whose property it is.
> >
> > Okay, but the problem is that the second sentence is not strictly true;
> > the meaning Dick described is merely a typical one, not a necessary one.
>
> Oh no? Perhaps you mean that it can sometimes be interpreted dynamically:
>
> (a) - I can't cut this bread.
> - Well it cut ok yesterday.
>
> But this is true of all states:
>
> (b) - The judge is sober.
> - Well he was drunk enough yesterday.
There are two things not strictly correct about Dick's "The
event-type is a state - the property of being such that the event
described is hard or [easy]".
The first fault is that not all middles have to with difficulty or
easiness. Instead, the 'referent' of the middle is simply whatever
you get when you reckon up the meaning of the whole VP. Adjuncts
to do with difficulty/easiness are not obligatory, and when they
are absent they are not necessarily implied.
The second fault is the claim that it is a state, though my
objection is slightly equivocal here. I certainly don't think that
this is a necessary stipulation, for it follows from the archagonist
requirement. But I equivocate because plainly dynamic 'middles'
like "The bureaucrat finally bribed" (-- refers to a Vendlerian
achievement - "finally accepted a bribe") seem to be indistinguishable
from anticausatives, though "After much compression, the bulky
rubbish finally disposed of" ought to be okay for those for whom
prepositional middles are grammatical. OTOH, I am not satisfied
that the putative distinction between anticausatives and middles
is either valid or sufficiently well defined.
> > OTOH, the meaning described in the first sentence is a necessary one, not
> > merely a typical one.
> >
> > Furthermore, the meaning of the subject of middles is not "X is such
> > that the event described is hard or difficult".
>
> No? What is it then?
It is "X is the archagonist of the meaning of the VP". But as I've
said in other messages, I have a sense that this could be shown
to be a general condition on subjects -- the condition that the
subject is the most agenty -- and hence it is enough to state the
syntax, with all the semantics following automatically without
stipulation.
--And.
|