> -----Original Message-----
> From: Word Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of And
> Rosta
> Sent: 15 August 2004 13:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WG] Dick (RE: [WG] old chestnuts department)
>
>
> Jasp:
> > > Compare:
> > >
> > > die of fright
> > > die from fright
> > >
> > > Here it seems to me that both mean that the dying is caused by fright.
> > > So no direct relation between dying and fright.
> > >
> > > And compare
> > >
> > > clear the table of clutter
> > > cover the table with clutter
> > >
> > > Here one could accept that there is a direct relation between clear/
> > > cover and clutter.
> >
> > Well, I'd say there was a direct relationship in the dying ones too (the
> > dying is the result of the fright: compare _They killed him *of/*from
> > fright_ (of course _with (a) fright_ is ok)).
>
> So you take the absence of an alternation with the transitive to be
> evidence that the relationship is direct?
No. Sorry should have made myself clearer. In _They killed him_ they are the
causer; in _He died of fright_ the fright is. 'Swhy you can't have both.
> The absence of the alternation
> demands an explanation (-- I don't have one handy), but I don't
> follow your reasoning, where you seem to be arguing that the lack
> of alternation demonstrates that my analysis, in which "dying" is
> an argument of "of/from", is wrong.
>
> > Also, at least in the case of OF, I think the fright is an
> argument of the
> > dying too (something like 'cause of death'). Compare _My hair
> turned white
> > *of(/from) fright_.
>
> Yes. I agree that OF is lexically selected here. But I don't think that
> allows us to draw many conclusions about the argument structure.
>
> --And.
>
|