Timeline for The semantic role of an object of a verb
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2019 at 9:07 | comment | added | Richard Z | I'm afraid I don't understand. The definition of "involvedness" is what I'm trying to elucidate. According to the criteria you provided, "me" seems to be un-involved. So would you agree that "me" is not involved? Or is that not the kind of example you were looking for? | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 8:56 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ I think it depends on whether you think that 'me' is not involved in the action of those verbs at all. Cf. "She drew a picture of me." | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 8:29 | comment | added | Richard Z | How about: "She drew / painted / sculpted me". That is, she created an artwork representing me. I do not have to be present when she does that (your criterion from yesterday's comment). I do not necessarily receive anything (your criterion from today). Yet, "me" is a direct object. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 7:58 | comment | added | Richard Z | Okay, so the object doesn't have to be animate. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 7:54 | comment | added | Richard Z | I told you several times: Your question is subjective, vague and does not define "involvedness". The answers that exist at the moment also show this. I'm trying to clarify your quesiton so it can be answered! | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 6:17 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ Are you trying to post an answer to my question? If so, please refer to the question itself instead of trying to come up with your own question. BTW, where did you come up with the idea that 'X' must be an animate entity? Please note that the question is not about the one example in the question but about the characteristics of 'object', direct or indirect. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 5:59 | comment | added | Richard Z | Ok. So is it then fair to say that your criterion for involvedness is this: in the construction “She verb-ed X”, “X” must be an animate entity who may possibly receive or benefit from something, but not necessarily so, as someone could also just have had “X” in mind or intended “X” as the beneficiary? | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 5:39 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ In your first two examples, turns out she didn't perform the act of providing. So, even though they include the verb, those examples shouldn't tell you anything about the verb's action. In your third example, it's not the first sentence but the second one that confirms that I received the sandwich. So, it shouldn't tell you anything about the first sentence. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 5:09 | comment | added | Richard Z | But that depends on the verb’s mood, embedding, modals etc. “She wanted to provide me with a sandwich, but didn’t.” She might have provided me with a sandwich, but I didn’t deserve it.” Inversely, in “She made me a sandwich. It was delicious”, I actually received the sandwich as well. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 0:31 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ I believe the 'provide' example necessarily involves 'me' in the verb's action, because when you 'provide' someone with something, that someone actually gets to receive that something. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 0:27 | comment | added | listeneva | @Minty I've repeated this many times including in the question itself. I suggest you read the question carefully. Thank you. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 20:18 | comment | added | Richard Z | What do you think about "My mom provided me with a sandwich". Here, "me" is a direct object. Do you think "me" is involved in the action? If so, how is it different from "prepared/made"? | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 17:56 | comment | added | user339660 | @listeneva if Mom does the action with you in mind - as the intended beneficiary - I don't understand how you can say that has nothing to do with the action. It is the whole reason why she does the action. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 1:41 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ Being present is important in the verb 'make' because if you're not there you're not involved in the process of making. But the same is not true with the verb 'help'. In your example, you don't have to be at the right place at the right time in order for you to be involved in the process of being helped. So I guess it's case by case. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 16:26 | comment | added | Richard Z | You said “‘me’ doesn’t have to present when Mom makes the sandwich”. If this is the criterion for “involvedness”, you should accept “help s.o.” as an example of what you’re looking for. In “Without realizing it, she inadvertently helped me”, “me” doesn’t have to present either. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 16:15 | comment | added | Richard Z | Theta role is a synonym for semantic role. Same thing. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 16:13 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ I think I know what a semantic role is, but not sure about "theta role". I'm afraid that's not my question. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 16:08 | comment | added | Richard Z | Ok, two questions: 1) are you familiar with the concept of semantic roles / theta roles? 2) would it be fair to paraphrase your question as: Can a direct object be a recipient or benefactor? | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 15:47 | comment | added | listeneva | @RichardZ I think simply being involved shouldn't be confused with being "involved in the action of the verb". In my example, you can't say "me" is involved in the action of the verb 'make', because "me" doesn't even have to be present when or where "Mom" makes the sandwich. And it's not even clear that "me" can eventually benefit or profit from the sandwich, because that's entirely up to context. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 11:07 | comment | added | Richard Z | How do you evaluate “involvedness?” It’s a very subjective term. You could say, for example, that “me” in your example is involved because they receive, benefit or profit from the sandwich. So if I give you an example of an unaffected direct object, you could simply say, “oh, but in my opinion the object is involved in the action.” The question is a bit vague. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 10:48 | answer | added | KarlG | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 7:51 | comment | added | Kate Bunting | There are several constructions in the English language which could mean something strange if understood literally. I had John and Mary for dinner means that I invited them to my house for a meal, not that I ate them. I feel like an apple (I would like to eat one) invites the humorous reply You don't look like one. So Mom made me a sandwich could mean that she made me into one, but doesn't unless someone chooses to understand it that way. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 3:45 | answer | added | herisson | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 2:54 | history | asked | listeneva | CC BY-SA 4.0 |