From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!mcgrath Wed Sep 16 21:23:01 EDT 1992
Article 6880 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!mcgrath
>From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: missing verbs
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.151209.29696@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
References: <1992Sep9.162211.11503@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <BILL.92Sep10154813@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:12:09 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <BILL.92Sep10154813@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu>, bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes in part:
|> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> 
|>    > 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.
|> 
|> I think there is a connection.  The point is that the structure of a
|> sentence often contains subtle information about the roles of its
|> elements.  In a locative sentence of the form "A is acorp B", B plays
|> the role of a landmark -- a large immovable object -- while A is a
|> movable thing located relative to B.  Thus English speakers will
|> usually, if pressed, admit that if "The bicycle is next to the house"
|> is true, then "The house is next to the bicycle" is also true, but the
|> latter form is *bad* because of its connotations.

And so on.  Several people have waded in with claims about the
"rightness" and "wrongness" of the constructions, and folk explanations
for these judgements.

In fact, the meaning of those two sentences is CULTURALLY DEFINED,
as is the degree of "rightness".  Since both are intelligible, both
are clearly part of the English language in the broadest sense.  But
people clearly differ in the precise interpretation of the sentences,
and in the judgement of grammatical "OK-ness" of the sentences, which
is basically unrealted to the MEANING of the sentence.

I remember a talk by a linguist who indicated that, possibly because
of a yiddish background, found sentences such as "Beans I ate." to
be perfectly OK, while many consider that improper English (although
practically everyone can understand the meaning).

The point is, you guys are arguing about something based on your
individual linguistic idioms, which are not identical.  Perhaps
a more reasonable approach would be to ask who says one or both
of these sentences, and what do they mean when they say them.


