Dick:
> But does it make any difference to the semantic structure? E.g.
> Consider Standard English (1)
> (1) He is tall.
> and then (2) in a language such as Black English, Russian or Arabic which
> doesn't use a copular verb for "equivalent" sentences like (2)
> (2) He tall.
> I believe (1) and (2) have identical semantic structures. You seem to be
> suggesting that (1) has some element in the semantic structure which is
> missing in (2).
Yes, I am. Or at least I am in principle (because my ideas are not
very concrete or specific). Let me go out on a limb and suggest that
'er' of verbs has the semantic property of being the most agentive
argument. In that case, (1) combines the meaning of (2) with the
additional semantic requirement that "He" is the most agentive
argument of "is". However, the pragmatic applicability of (1) is
identical to that of (2).
--And.
At 10:46 28/07/2004, you wrote:
>Dick:
>
> > The point I was making was that the
> > verb 'be' doesn't seem to express any meaning because
> > the same meaning can often be expressed without any verb at all.
>
>BE itself doesn't express any *lexical* meaning (unless it
>copies the lexical meaning of one of its complements, as
>per WG), but (IMO) it expresses *syntactic* meaning, because
>BE has dependents and dependencies have intrinsic constructional
>meaning. I believe Jasp has said something similar in the past.
>
>--And.
>
>
>
>At 09:49 28/07/2004, you wrote:
> >Hello,
> >If I may put in a word... Hudsons's statement that Russian does not have
> >"be" is
> >not true. In (3) obviously not. But if we put the sentence into the past:
> >was (byl) is absolutely indispensible.
> >Moreover even in the present, there are contexts that "is" (est') is also
> >necessary.
> >Richard
> >
> >Citando Richard Hudson <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > > Ok - so are you really saying that passives have different semantic
> > > structures from actives? I.e. (2) has a layer of semantic structure
>that's
> > > absent from (1), in which she is the er of a be-type structure?
> > > (1) A specialist saw her.
> > > (2) She was seen by a specialist.
> > > If so, are you saying that languages like Russian that have no be have
> > > different semantic structures from those like English that do have be
in
> > > sentences like (3)?
> > > (3) Ivan is tall.
> > > And if so, are you really separating semantics from syntax? Just
>wondering
> > > ...
> > >
> > > At 20:39 27/07/2004, you wrote:
> > > > > >I think And's account gives us a handle on how to explain that
> > > > > structurally.
> > > > > >(Incidentally, we haven't yet touched on the question of how the
> > > argument
> > > > > >structure of the main verb affects the binding structure of the
> > > > > other one.)
> > > > > ## Yes - there's something very syntactic about it, because the
>subject
> > > of
> > > > > the subordinate verb doesn't have to be er:
> > > > > (1) I promised to be given a good mark. (Is that ok?)
> > > > > (2) I persuaded her to be seen by a specialist.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hmm. I think I'd still have an er in there. As you may know, I
suspect
> > > >that's just regular BE (well, in any case, it is the BE that is
> > responsible
> > > >for the funny properties of its er).
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >O SAPO já está livre de vírus com a Panda Software, fique você também!
> >Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt
>
>
>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
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
|