PREDICTING SYNTAX FROM SEMANTICS 527helare-: think (x) about.something.x.knows.be.in.mind (y)
↓
Semantic Redundancy Rules
↓
χ = a person; y = a (knowledge) proposition; the predicate is an activity
↓
Cognition/Propositional Attitude
↓
Core/Clausal Subordination
↓
-rle complement
Figure 5: The analysis of complement association with itelare- "(actively)
know"
tion, the y argument of itelare- represents some state of affairs which is per
ceived as desirable, relevant or necessary with respect to the χ argument's
situation. The semantic representation of the purposive adjunct -tyeke
encodes an action to be undertaken with the goal of bringing about this
state of affairs, and it combines with the semantic representation of the
main predicate, itelare-, to give the following propositional structure: want
(x, ([think (x) about something.x.knows.be.in.mind (y)] CAUSE [happen
(y)])), where y is the event in the purposive adjunct. On this analysis we
can roughly paraphrase (9b) as "He was thinking about the fact that it is
best to come this way first, intending this to cause him to come this way
first", and the closest, most natural English translation of this is "He
remembered to come this way first." This is summarized in Figure 6.
Itelare-: think (x) about.something.x.knows.be.in.mind (y)
↓
Semantic Redundancy Rules
4 -tyeke
χ = a person; the predicate is an activity; y = ← (purposive adjunct)
do χ activity A[main clause]
wanting this to cause B
[purposive clause]
Figure 6: The analysis of itelare- "(actively) know" with purposive adjunct