Re: cleft place structures

["Arthur W. Protin Jr." (GC-ACCURATE) <cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin>]

Folks,
    I argue this point largely as a representative of the
community's inertia.  Add to that some appreciation of the
role of devil's advocate and a small measure of real support
for the position.

    In the debate about the nature of "events", as some places
of gismu are called, I argued that a relation (my word for what
I think is "brivda") can be used without any of its places being
populated and I offer the following example (without having time
to check that I am using the correct cmavo (I still don't)):

        mi galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre bitmu le nu cinta preja
        I modify the blue wall into the red wall by paint-spreading.

I further argued that the proposed actorless place structure
(definition) is the old one with an x1/x4 swap and x1 elided.
John Cowan is concerned that the existing definition allows
constructs like:

         I modify the blue wall into the red wall
                by the act of your spreading paint.

But I am not!
While my role in your paint-spreading may not always be
obvious, I also feel that it need not always be explained.

I can imagine a great many situations where the role is
sufficiently obvious.  One that I hope will convey the
sense of it is Saddam addressing his troops last August
and saying

	I modify our countries border by your invasion
		of Kuwait.

On a much more philosophical note, any act that I could prevent,
that I allowed to happen, I am an agent in.  Thus if I in any
way facilitated your paint-speading, I can be said to have modified
the wall.

(Now, can some one tell me with some degree of certainty, that
"le nu" is the correct indication for attaching the relation
"cinta preja"?  John, didn't I use just "le"?)

    thank you,
    Art Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@pica.army.mil>
These are my personal views and do not reflect those of my boss
or this installation.