From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!tulane!rouge!mhf4421 Wed Sep 16 21:23:48 EDT 1992
Article 6945 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.bio:3954 sci.skeptic:20142 soc.men:5123 soc.women:4828 comp.ai.philosophy:6945
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!tulane!rouge!mhf4421
>From: mhf4421@usl.edu (Flynn Matthew H)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: missing verbs
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.220726.17031@usl.edu>
Date: 16 Sep 92 22:07:26 GMT
References: <1992Sep9.230021.5182@news.media.mit.edu> <BILL.92Sep9232609@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Sep11.120124.15227@techbook.com>
Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Lines: 29

In article <1992Sep11.120124.15227@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>Dr. Minsky has pointed out a curious assymetry in the English language,
>but does any language _not_ have such an assymetry?

Going back to the discussion of "A beats B" vs. "B loses to A", the problem
does seem to be fairly cross cultural.  "To Beat" is and active verb, and (I
suppose) so is to lose.  However you cannot say A lost B unless you mean B is
something a once posessed and then (voluntary or no) released posession of.
Lose in the active sense has nothing to do with competition, beating, et. al.

When we say A lost to B we are saying that A lost (a potential victory in a 
competion) to B.  B is an indirect object, which I believe someone has already
mentioned.  The action is indirect: A performed no action directly on B.  In
fact A has done nothing to B except perhaps giving her the satisfaction of
winning.

The alternative form of course is A was beaten by B.  This, the passive form of
beat, is stated as two words in English, but in other languages "was beaten" is represented by one word, generally with the same root as "to beat" but with a
different ending.  The problem is stil not solved in those languages, I suppose,as we would still have an extra word: A <verb+passive ending> by B. B is now theobject of the preposition "by"!!!  

It seems that the real difference between "A beat B" and "A lost to B" is that
in the former case A does something to B, but in the latter B does not affect A.
Beating implies a direct effect on an opponent, losing does not.  Passive verbs never have a direct object and is inherently different fromthe active verb in atleast this sense.

By the way, lose is not the opposite of beat, but it is the opposite of win: A
won against B.  Here we have parrallel structure.  Beat has no opposite, and that is where the asymetry lies

                                                        M.H. Flynn


