> -----Original Message-----
> From: Word Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Richard Hudson
> Sent: 07 August 2004 15:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WG] Dick (RE: [WG] old chestnuts department)
>
>
> Jasper:
>
> > > >1. I fear spiders.
> > > >2. I'm afraid of spiders.
> > > >3. Spiders scare me.
> > > ## I agree 1 and 3 are different; what I'm disagreeing about
> is that 1 and
> > > 2 are different semantically because 2 contains "am". You
> > > probably wouldn't
> > > include an extra element in the semantics for "of" in 2,
> >
> >I most certainly would. What else explains the similarity
> between this and
> >other constructions with _of_ (eg _die of fright_)?
> ## Yes, certainly, but what all _of_ s have in common is that there's a
> direct semantic relation between their parent and their child. So
> I suppose
> you're saying that this relation corresponds to _of_, and
> wouldn't be there
> without _of_. Ok, you win!
>
Yes. It would be too easy if every word's meaning consisted of a single
semantic concept, related unambiguously to a lexical sense, but that doesn't
mean they don't all (?) have a meaning.
Jasp
>
> Dick (Richard) Hudson, FBA
> Dept of Phonetics and Linguistics,
> University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
> 020 7679 3152; fax 020 7383 4108; www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
>
|