1 Lennart Lönngren University of Tromsø LOVE. 2 Let us start with a sentence in the active voice and its passive counterpart.

1

Lennart LönngrenUniversity of Tromsø

LOVE

2

Let us start with a sentence in the active voice and its passive counterpart.

3

Everybody loves her.

She is loved by everybody.

4

The preposition by in the passive sentence must be marked as syntactic: it does not occupy a node in the semantic

representation.

5

Everybody loves her.

She is loved (by) everybody.

6

Is in is loved, as opposed to was in was loved, is a tense marker, functioning as a

predicate. The carrier of the corresponding meaning in the active

sentence is a morpheme, which we mark as incorporated.

7

Everybody love<s> her.

She is loved (by) everybody.

Alternatively, we could extract a portmanteau morpheme from is: (is)<PRES>, but that would be an unnecessary complication.

8

This is not a complete representation. The tense markers in both sentences function as a two-place predicate, the first valency

position of which is occupied by the implicit speech act verb «say».

9

Everybody love<s> her.

She is loved (by) everybody.

«s.»

«s.»

«s.» = «(I) say»

10

The implicit verb also dominates the syntactic top node, i.e. love.

11

Everybody love<s> her.

She is loved (by) everybody.

«s.»

«s.»

«s.» = «(I) say»

12

In the following tense markers and speech act predicates will be disregarded.

13

Everybody love<s> her.

She is loved (by) everybody.

«s.»

«s.»

«s.» = «(I) say»

14

Everybody loves her.

She (is) loved (by) everybody.

15

Now let us compare an ordinary sentence with its cleft counterpart.

16

I love Mary.

It is Mary that I love.

17

Three words in the cleft sentence are syntactic. (The topicalization of Mary can be handled by a special implicit predicate, which we disregard here.)

18

I love Mary.

(It is) Mary (that) I love.

19

He loved his new car.

The object of his love was his new car.

Paraphrases can also be created by means of certain role-markers:

20

We mark four of the words in the paraphrase as syntactic.

21

He loved his new car.

(The object of) his love (was) his new car.

Note that his in his love is not a predicate, whereas his in his car is a two-place predicate.

22

The same syntactic function as object can be fulfilled by a derivative of the

verb, meaning ’object of love’. Compare:

23

He loved only Mary.

Mary was the only one he loved.

Mary was his only love.

24

He loved only Mary.

Mary (was the) only (one) he loved.

Mary (was) his only (love)<love>.

25

In a small shop in Tucson I found the following text:

26

Choose your love

Love your choice

27

Instead of buying it and putting it on the wall I decided to analyse it.

The first step is to extract the verbs out of the nouns love and choice. After

that we can easily establish the subject and object relations.

28

Choose your love<love>

Love your choice<choose>

29

Finally, let us conflate the two parts into one sentence. The comma separating the clauses

represents a two-place predicate with the meaning «then».

30

Choose your love<love>,

love your choice<choose>.

, (comma/pause) = «then»

31

Now we can compare this sentence with a more basic and explicit paraphrase:

Choose the person you love,then love the person you chose.

… or still more explicitly:

Choose the person that you love,then love the person that you chose.

32

We see that the object relation arrows in each clause now point to two

separate words. These are connected by means of the definite article, here with

a cataphoric function.

Choose the person that you love.

The content of the connection is coreferentiality.

33

Note also in the explicit paraphrase the different tenses: … you love vs … you chose.

To account for this we must extract the corresponding tense morphemes:

Choose the person you love<PRES>,

Love the person you chose<PRET>,

34

Choose your love<love>«PRES»,

love your choice<choose>«PRET».

In the original sentence this difference is totally implicit, but we can still represent it:

35

The difference in tense can be traced back to a semantic distinction between the two verbs,

namely the opposition athelic / thelic.

THE END

36

Whoops, I forgot overt derivatives, i.e. words formed from love and its equivalents by

means of suffixation.

cat <lov>er

Mary’s <lov>er

37

In Russian, different nouns are used in this case.

<ljubi>tel’ koshek

Mashin <ljubov>nik

38

There are also derivatives expressing the converse relation.

<ljubim>ec caricy

the queen’s «like» favourite

min <älsk>lingsmelodi

my favourite tune

39

Empty verbs in English:

Peter (makes) love (to) Mary.

Peter älskar (med) Mary.

Mary (fell in) love (with) Peter.

Mary förälskade (sig i) Peter.

40

Cf. also the paraphrases:

Peter (is) Mary’s (<lov>er).

Peter (makes) love (to) Mary.

41

In Russian, the equivalent of make love cannot realize the second position.

Oni (zanimajutsja) ljubov’ju.

They (make) love.

42

Moi <ljubim>ye menja zhdali.

The following could be a way of representing substantivized adjectives and participles.

My loved ones (were) waiting (for) me.

43

Now truly:

THE END