On English causality: Does the superset of permissive action always incorporate the possibility of direct causative action? That is if I translate a statement as X permitted Y but X actually caused Y did the initial statement include the possibility that it was caused by X?
I have verb phrases in another language, which I'm told relate to "what is x doing" as directly opposed to "x caused y".
This verb grammar is described by those who know its use and teaches it as
"viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence" which "implies no causation" and "notions of causation are absent".
I think that permissive is better suited than the causative because I assume permissive is a superset of the causative.
Is there another way of representing this rather ambiguous causality besides the causative, while still incorporating the subject and the verb?
For instance :
"noun verb" would have the translation "noun [permitted/let/allowed pronoun to/be] verb"
"noun verb adverb" would have the translation "noun [permitted/let/allow] adverb [to be] modified_verb"
"noun said" would have this translation: "noun [let it be] said"
"He did bad" would be translated "He [permitted] bad [to be] done"
and a more literal example
"not die die" would have the translation "Die? you [will] not [be permitted to] die"