tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 19 12:08:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:57:18 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:15:41 -0500 TPO <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Heck, even {nuqDaq yuch Dapol?} uses a locative that doesn't have a
>> >> lot to do with the location of the subject of the sentence.
>> >
>> >I perfectly disagree. The moment of the action of the verb, the
>> >subject is at the location. The question is not "Where is the
>> >chocolate?" The question is "Where do you store the chocolate?"
>> >The action occurs while you and the chocolate are in the same
>> >place.
>> ...
>> >Come on. The action occurs at a location. That's what locatives
>> >do. In this case, storing/keeping the chocolate happens where
>> >you are as you store the chocolate.
>>
>> Well... not necessarily.
>> I store the chocolate in the basement, but I have never been in the
>> basement; I drop it down the laundry chute.
>
>You don't store it in the basement. You store it in the laundry
>chute. It falls into the basement all by itself. Gravity stores
>it in the basement.
This is really stretching it. I can store all my money in the bank's
vaults without ever going there. Yes, *I* keep it there. The bank might
too, but it's my money and that's where it's stored, and stored there by my
action (sending the bank's workers to do it). I keep it there (where did
you pick up this distinction between "keep" and "store" anyway? And if
there is one, note that the dictionary lists "keep"). This really sounds
like you decided on one interpretation, and you'd rather break the meanings
of words than accept that maybe your interpretation does hold always. I
can set up a housing project in the desert without being there; I'd still
deserve to use {vIcher}....
~mark