From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!colten Wed Sep 16 21:22:45 EDT 1992
Article 6862 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.bio:3866 sci.skeptic:19825 soc.men:4842 soc.women:4550 comp.ai.philosophy:6862
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!colten
>From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: missing verbs
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.192456.28018@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Followup-To:  soc.men
Summary: Location or identification
Sender: news@cbfsb.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <1992Sep9.162211.11503@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Sep10.180152.12137@newshost.lanl.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:24:56 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <1992Sep10.180152.12137@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.124516.3594@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
> |> In article <BILL.92Sep9232609@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
> |> >Anyway, English (and other languages) are full of curious asymmetries.
> |> >For example, it's okay to say "The bicycle is next to the house", but
> |> >it's not okay to say "The house is next to the bicycle", though
> |> >logically they ought to mean the same thing.
> |> 
> |> Logically, "the bicycle is next to the house" means "the bicycle was put next
> |> to the house", and "the house is next to the bicycle" means "the house was put
> |> next to the bicycle."
> 
> No.  "The bicycle is next to the house" merely specifies the location of
> the bicycle.  "The house is next to the bicycle" similarly specifies the
> location of the house.  Nothing in either sentence specifies any action
> of "putting" anything anywhere.  The latter sounds strange only because 
> of the common sense information, that we all share, that houses are 
> generally larger and more visible than bicycles, so it's generally 
> unproductive to specify the location of a house in terms of a bicycle.  
> However, there's nothing ungrammatical about either statement, and their 
> semantics are both perfectly reasonable.
> 
> In a particular context, it may be quite reasonable to say "the house 
> is next to the bicycle."  For example, if the bicycle is in plain view
> and the house is obscured by intervening foliage or other objects. In
> such a context, the statement would probably be used naturally - with
> neither the speaker, nor the listener thinking it the least unusual.
> 
> In any case, you began with a discussion about active vs. passive
> voice in the concept of "defeated" (a transitive verb), and now
> you're arguing over a simple locative.  The concepts involved are
> quite different.
> 
> -- 
> J. Giles

It sounds to me as if "The bicycle is next to the house" is location,
while "The house is next to the bicycle" is identification.  That
of course is based on certain shared concepts - such as that houses
are larger and more easily spotted than bicycles and we give directions
that use the most visible landmark.  The identification part comes
in when you have several houses and you are looking for the house
next to the mailbox or something more unique.

We also make other assumptions.  For example, both sentences
make no mention of the *type* of house - which could be a dog house
or a doll house - either of which is small than a bicycle.

marc colten




