Posted by Kazper at 8:29pm Jan 7 '09Terms are combinations of phonemes and graphemes that refer/represent completed and uncompleted phrases and sentences that refer/represent concepts that equal persons, places, things, ideas, actions, states, locations and [stuff] that can be categorized in many different categories pertaining to/revolving around... that that they are. They also possess a function (thematic role) relative to the event that they're in. Probably bunches of other stuff too.
Thematic roles are not inherent meanings. They are functions of arguements relative to events.
"to (vo) x3" in "x1 gives x2 to (vo) x3" helps define the term "give"... because... it provides another known arguement that can then help to... contain and isolate the unknown term "give". Ugh!
If "x1", "x2" and "to (vo) x3" are all known by the student then "give" (the unknown combination of phonemes/graphemes) is... contained, isolated and highlighted and then hopefully the meaning it refers to/represents is discernable since it too should be contained, isolated and highlighted in reality.
I don't think I'm really gonna have syntactic arguements since context at times can allow one to convey... technically nothing, while actually conveying... enough. So: one will just convey whatever they need to convey.
In "x1 run to (vo) x2" and "x1 give x2 to (vo) x3" both "x2" and "x3" are locations but given the context of the latter event the thematic role of "x3 is a different type of thematic role. So: the thematic roles of uncore arguements aren't always determined solely by their selbri. Though I think they'll always at least be some particular of a general role determined by their selbri.
Actually, I may not incorporate the secondary selbri (coselbri) of semantic arguements (I'm referring to an indirect object) so that I can avoid having to indicate it if it moves out of its standard place. This might cause a little difficulty at times if the IO can't be distinguised from the other SS (secondary selbri) but I don't think that it'll be that big of a problem. Another benefit is that I will only need a S suffix. Even if the DO moves I can just mark the S and indirectly identify the DO. (Sweet!)
Perhaps active voice, passive voice, etc. ..., would be called "1st voice, 2nd voice, etc. ...,"
Time PS S DO IO SS would be the "1st voice". There could end up being alot of "voices" given the amount of different arguement orders there can be. With multiple SS that can be put in all sorts of positions... there's gonna be alot.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Thematic roles are not inherent meanings. They are functions of arguements relative to events.
"to (vo) x3" in "x1 gives x2 to (vo) x3" helps define the term "give"... because... it provides another known arguement that can then help to... contain and isolate the unknown term "give". Ugh!
If "x1", "x2" and "to (vo) x3" are all known by the student then "give" (the unknown combination of phonemes/graphemes) is... contained, isolated and highlighted and then hopefully the meaning it refers to/represents is discernable since it too should be contained, isolated and highlighted in reality.
I don't think I'm really gonna have syntactic arguements since context at times can allow one to convey... technically nothing, while actually conveying... enough. So: one will just convey whatever they need to convey.
In "x1 run to (vo) x2" and "x1 give x2 to (vo) x3" both "x2" and "x3" are locations but given the context of the latter event the thematic role of "x3 is a different type of thematic role. So: the thematic roles of uncore arguements aren't always determined solely by their selbri. Though I think they'll always at least be some particular of a general role determined by their selbri.
Actually, I may not incorporate the secondary selbri (coselbri) of semantic arguements (I'm referring to an indirect object) so that I can avoid having to indicate it if it moves out of its standard place. This might cause a little difficulty at times if the IO can't be distinguised from the other SS (secondary selbri) but I don't think that it'll be that big of a problem. Another benefit is that I will only need a S suffix. Even if the DO moves I can just mark the S and indirectly identify the DO. (Sweet!)
Perhaps active voice, passive voice, etc. ..., would be called "1st voice, 2nd voice, etc. ...,"
Time PS S DO IO SS would be the "1st voice". There could end up being alot of "voices" given the amount of different arguement orders there can be. With multiple SS that can be put in all sorts of positions... there's gonna be alot.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~