RE: SUO: Re: Parse Of Things Remembered
Dear Matthew,
Yes, I believe that we are now in agreement.
>MW: This then is the nub of it. I see the individual relations between
>the activity and the participants in the activity, whilst you see the
>pattern of all the roles in the activity. If this is what it boils down
>to I don't have a problem.
>> I agree that this is not what Pat suggested. For many kinds
>> relations, however, such a translation might be very useful,
>> but the point is that no such decomposition for "give" can
>> capture the full meaning.
>MW: Yes. The examples I can think of where this does work is where
>say x already stands for the activity, and y and z are participants
>in the activity. However, in this case part3(y,z) would probably be
>meaningless.
Yes, one of the three parts may be omitted, but the point is
that no part of the decomposition involves more than two.
>> I agree with you. But Peirce and I would say that there is
>> no "new" object here, but merely a recognition that "give" is
>> an entity that deserves to have its own variable, such as e.
>
>MW: It was still missing in the starting point.
>
>> That entity e has exactly the same number of links to the
>> other entities in the sentence as the verb give.
>
>MW: Precisely.
On that point of agreement, I'll stop.
John