"wear" and "put on"

[Ruth Berman]

The same holds for Hebrew -- li-lbosh means both 'wear' and 'put', cf.
causative le-halbish 'dress someone (in something, put something
on someone), reflexive/middle le-hitlabesh  -- from the root l-b-sh.
The  non-native error mentioned at the outset of this interchange is
typical of Hebrew speakers, too
Ruth Berman

David Palfreyman wrote:

>FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek"
>covers both "wear" and "put on".  The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means
>"get dressed".
>
>:-D
>
>
>>>>"A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com> 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes:
>><< "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear
>>
>>
>put on
>
>
>>pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is
>>
>>
>different
>
>
>>from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an
>>
>>
>intentional
>
>
>>(agentive) component in "put on". >>
>>
>>But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in
>>
>>
>English?
>
>
>> Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink
>>
>>
>pyjamas
>
>
>>on the teddy bear"?  I think the original example is mainly about how
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different
>>
>>
>senses of
>
>
>>time.  Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to
>>
>>
>differences
>
>
>>in time.  E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this
>>
>>
>dress on
>
>
>>you,"  they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress."
>>
>>Regards,
>>Steve Long
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer,
>English
>speakers can use "to be dressed in".
>
>(1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas.
>
>(2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas.
>
>
>Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be
>dressed.
>The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the
>woman
>dressed herself is purely pragmatic.
>
>In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue.
>
>
>"Hitlabshi"  -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive)
>
>"Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this"   (Whether the emphasis is
>on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.)
>
>    Thus "LIVSHI  et ze" means "Put that on right now!"
>
>    But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is
>what
>you wear."
>
>     In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are
>the
>patient.
>
>
>However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the
>construction
>used.
>
>
>"ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama."
>agent: woman  patient: pajama
>
>
>"ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a
>pajama."
>
>Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is
>neither
>an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted:
>"Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed."
>
>"hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone)
>in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the
>sentence
>still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent
>is specified.
>
>
>English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of
>the action, but they also require that the patient be specified.
>You can't say:
>
>
>               "Put on!"
>
>                 or
>               "Wear"
>
>without sounding very strange.
>
>"Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive
>version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly
>"wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about
>how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can
>use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient:
>"to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another."
>
>
>It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of
>"to
>dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works
>a
>lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent.
>
>
>    --Aya Katz
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542
>http://www.well.com/user/amnfn
>
>
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
> at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
>
>
>