Re: TECH: deagentive place structures

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la and cusku di'e

> > #katna ka'a cut x1 (agent) cuts/splits/divides x2 (object) using
> > #tool/blade x3 into pieces x4 5c 25 (cf. kakpa, sraku for cutting into
> > #without division; plixa, dakfu, jinci, porpi, spofu, tunta, xrani)
> > #   x1 divides into pieces ...
> >
> > Don't change it. It'd become too close to {spisa}, and without agent, I'm
> > not sure it'd be meaningful to speak of a tool, either.
>
> (1) I strongly advocate:
>
>  x1 (blade) cut x2 (object)

I like this one.

> The notion of cutting is important, & without a blade there is no cutting.
> However, if I cut my finger, there are no pieces, so the x4 would have
> to be zihoed off, were it to remain as an argument of the gismu. Note
> that I can be cut by flying glass (= the 'blade') with there being no
> agent responsible.
>
> (2) I also suggest that for the meaning you suggest for katna,
> a deagentive fendi
>    x1 divides into parts x2 by method x3
> will suffice. I note that sepli is already deagentive.
>
> "Cut into pieces" will then be katna zei fendi (zei gasnu).

fendi zei katna (zei gasnu), please.

> > #tisna tis fill 'stuff' x1 fills/stuffs x2 with material x3; x1
> > #inserts/pours x3 into x2 6f 35 (cf. culno, kunti, rinci, setca, culno)
> > #    x1 fills with material x2
> >
> > Nope. That's {culno}
>
> I think culno is to do with the idea of being full, while a deagentive
> tisna would be to do with a substance entering a container, quite
> independently of whether the container becomes full. So fill = cram
> (as in "cram the box with papers") would be culno zei gsnu), while
> "pour water into the basin" would be tisna zei gasnu. So I support
> the change, but suggest the structure and keyword:
>
>    tisna  substance x1 pours into container x2

This seems right.

> > #tunta tun poke 'stab' x1 (agent) stimulates/pokes/jabs/stabs/prods x2
> > #(experiencer) with x3 [stimulus/pointed object] a 1 [stimulus need not
> > #be physical object]; (cf. balre, dakfu, darxi, fanza, jicla, katna,
> > #tikpa)
> > #     stimulus/object x1 stimulates x2

> This stimulate bit is grossly metaphorical.

I like the "grossly" :)

> I advocate:
>     x1 (pointed object) pokes x2

Sounds reasonable.

> > #tunlo tul tu'o swallow x1 (agent/throat) swallows/engulfs x2 5c 2 (cf.
> > #citka, pinxe)
> > #     Does your throat or you do the swallowing?  This may be agent/object
> > #     confusion, or it may be a mass concept masquerading as metonymy
> >
> > Eek. Don't know what to make of this one (as the logician said to the
> > pragmaticist); I guess keep it as is; we don't need to disentangle more than
> > we are capable of...
>
> This is very interesting. In English we can swallow without swallowing
> anything.

Not even saliva?

> This is a prime case where the x2 might need often to be
> zihoed off. I tentatively suggest:
>
>    tunlo  x1 (agent) gulps
>    tistuho (tisna zei tuho)  x1 (agent) swallows x2
>
> (assuming my proposal for tisna)

I don't like this change. I think {tunlo} is fine as it is.