From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 00:22:31 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>DMB, etc,
>
>As I've complained before, the words "subject" and "object" used in
>linguistics have little to do with the same words when used in metaphysics,
>eg SOM. In linguistics, "subject" only means "what you are talking about",
>and a sentence has a "predicate" (what you are saying about the subject),
>not an object (though the predicate can contain a "direct object" and/or an
>"indirect object"). (In fact Chomsky uses "noun phrase" and "verb phrase"
>for these roles -- in pragmatic linguistics one uses the words "topic" and
>"comment"). In other words, the subject/predicate distinction of linguistics
>or logic has nothing to do with the subject/object distinction of SOM.
>
>This is not to say that Chomsky has nothing of interest to say about
>subjects and objects in the metaphysical sense -- I would guess especially
>in his book Cartesian Linguistics, which I haven't read, but I don't know.
>
>- Scott
I think there is a relationship.
I think animates are more likely to put as
subjects and inanimates as the objects because
it is likely the animate is doing the action.
English speaking children learn verbs
like jumping easily but have a little
more difficulty with verbs like opening ( which causes
a change of state in the object).
I don't think you can say that the animate/inanimate
split is positively due to the Chomsky's idea of
an innate subject/verb/object grammar
but it sure makes sense.
And this animate/inanimate split sure reminds
me of the dynamic/static split.
Didn't Sidis have a title about animate and
inanimate (? can't remember what it was about).
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 26 2003 - 00:15:17 GMT