Re: Complex Sentences

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:11:51 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli 
<SuStel@email.msn.com> wrote:


> The interview told us precisely two NEW grammatical rules on this particular
> topic.
> 
> (1) For verbs with an inherent locative concept, {-Daq} may or may not be
> added to the OBJECT noun, which is the destination.
> 
> (2) When {-Daq} is used on an OBLIQUE noun in a sentence with a verb with an
> inherent locative concept, it means that the action of the verb takes place
> AT that noun.  The noun is not the destination of the action.

I think this is a good description except for one blatant 
assumption on your part. You are assuming that this is a general 
rule to be applied to verbs with locative concepts. Okrand did 
not present it that way. He presented that there was a specific 
set of verbs which had an exceptional relationship with their 
direct objects. We pinned down some of those verbs. These 
"rules" are not applicable to any verbs not explicitly shown to 
fit this pattern. Okrand explicitly said that the best way to 
learn how to use verbs is through observing canon usage.

You want to skip that step and be able to declare which verbs 
follow this pattern by classifying them as "having locative 
concepts". I don't think you have license to do that.

This is the core of the argument between us on this issue. You 
want to call these rules and I want to call them observations 
about a specific set of arbitrarily chosen verbs. I can 
certainly handle calling them rules about a specific set of 
arbitrarily chosen verbs which include locative concepts, but 
there's no way I'm going to go along with people deciding that 
the rules apply to any verb with a locative concept.

People will certainly misuse verbs if they make this assumption. 
I mean, {qIp} certainly includes a locative concept. There is a 
very specific location where the impact takes place. {Qeq} has a 
locative concept. {Dab} has a locative concept. {Sam} includes a 
locative concept. Where do we draw the line?

Well, we don't. Just because all of the verbs stated to behave 
this way have locative concepts does not mean that all verbs 
with locative concepts behave this way. It is that simple.
 
> All other rules are things we were able to work out already.  The interview
> also raises questions about the use of {-vo'} in these sentences.

I guess I have to look at the interview again. Primarily, I see 
it as not as optional as {-Daq} meaning you can't omit it, 
though I guess we could stand some clarifying about the prefix. 
I thought that he said something about {ghoS} in particular, 
like {yuQvo' vIghoS}. That deserves another look.
 
> SuStel
> Stardate 99116.2

charghwI' 'utlh