<div dir="ltr">In Yahgan (recently extinct genetic isolate from Tierra del Fuego), suffix -apisiu: (colon marks tenseness of the vowel preceding it) means 'without, not having, so for example simapisiu: ('there is no water' sima potable (fresh) water''. apitvpa (v schwa) is glossed as 'having no things, poor'. The compiler of the dictionary, the British missionary Thomas Bridges, defines this as based on api 'body' and -tvpan 'only', but my own sense is that *ap(i) here is more at 'have'. But 'need(s)' is variously ta:pvna, ta:pu:ku:, where ta:pvna is more at 'needs to survive' (as a child its mother's milk, or a person water), while ta:pu:ku: means 'to need but be too afraid, hesitant, or reluctant to try to get'. It is my belief that these forms are derivatives of the same underlying root shared with -a:pisiu: (-iu: by itself was a productive suffix meaning 'not yet' when appended to verb stems. There are other words along the 'needs/wants' spectrum, more usually dealing with intentions, planning, and such, desire, liking and love, etc. For example, tama:na means 'be hesitant, reluctant to do, careful'. But there is no sense of 'need' in the gloss laid out in the dictionary. kuru: is 'want, like, desire' generally, and has also found (in addition to the free lexeme) grammaticalized as an enclitic present tense form kush as a desiderative. <div><br></div><div>Jess Tauber</div></div><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avg.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 5:51 AM Volker Gast <<a href="mailto:volker.gast@uni-jena.de">volker.gast@uni-jena.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Christian,</p>
<p>I think a central question here is whether 'lack' is a predicate
with in-built negation, assigning a possessor role to its higher
argument and negating the Possessor relation, or whether it is a
predicate that assigns the role of a non-Possessor (or
would-be-Possessor) to that argument.</p>
<p>As far as I know, 'lack' licenses NPIs, e.g.:</p>
<p>(1) He lacks any sense of humour.</p>
<p>That seems to show that 'lack' essentially means 'not have', just
like 'being dead' means 'not being alive'.</p>
<p>I do not think that 'need' implies 'not have':</p>
<p>(2) I can't lend you my computer, I need it.</p>
<p>I would still maintain that this means "in the best of all
worlds, I have a computer".</p>
<p>Perhaps Sebastian is right and the modal always has wide scope,
i.e., 'I need a computer' simply means 'I need to have a computer'
(though the feeling of not actually having a computer seems to be
stronger in the latter case).</p>
<p>I wonder if evaluations should be factored into semantic roles.
They seem to be located at a different level of interpretation. A
semantic role is a relation between an event and a participant. An
evaluation is a relation between an evaluator (the speaker or a
participant) and a proposition. There are certainly predicates
that encode both semantic relations and some type of evaluation;
but then I would rather say that a predicate encodes some type of
semantic role and, in addition, some type of evaluation (rather
than including the evaluation in the semantic role).</p>
<p>I think those problems have been discussed in the context of the
adversative passive in Japaneses and related constructions (e.g.
external possessors in European languages). For instance, 'Du
stehst mir auf dem Fuß' also implies some negative evaluation, as
opposed to 'Du stehst auf meinem Fuß'.</p>
<p>Best,<br>
Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 02.07.22 10:05, Christian Lehmann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Dear everybody,<br>
<br>
many thanks for your help. At least some of the discussion seems
to converge on the following points:<br>
<br>
Fillmore-style semantic roles (i.e. semantic relations between a
referent and a situation core, conceived at a level of generality
that can cover different situation cores [coded by different
verbs]) are best analyzed in terms of primitive predicates. (I
could have known this; s.:<br>
Lehmann, Christian 2006, “Les rôles sémantiques comme prédicats”.
<i>Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris</i>
101/1:67-88.[<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251003441_Les_roles_semantiques_comme_predicats" target="_blank">télécharger<img src="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/fundus/pdf.gif"></a>])<br>
<br>
Then the meaning of 'X <i>lacks</i> Y' may boil down to 'X does
not have Y'.<br>
The meaning of 'X <i>needs</i> Y' would include this proposition
and another one like 'for X not to have Y affects X negatively' or
alternatively 'for X to have Y would be positive for X' (with
obvious choices for more formalization). This would encompass
Volker's notion of 'modalized possessor'.<br>
<br>
Now assuming that <i>lack</i> has the meaning indicated, then
'for X not to have Y affects X negatively' may be a conversational
implicature. On this basis, a language (maybe Yankunytjatjara) may
have 'lack' and lack 'need'. On the other hand, there are
languages like German and Cabecar which have 'need', but lack
'lack'.<br>
<br>
Returning to semantic roles: Given 'X does not have Y', X clearly
has the possessor role. However, 'X does not have Y' is not the
"point" in the meaning of 'need'; the point is that it would be
better for X to have Y. Then the question remains whether there is
any semantic role (already known) which covers this relation of X.
Randy argues that the case is analogous to 'love', so the role is
experiencer. It is also true that the role of X in 'X needs Y' is
often coded as some sort of dative dependent, which would fit the
experiencer interpretation. However, it also fits the possessor
interpretation, so this may not be decisive. On the basis of
Jürgen's paraphrase, X would be affected. This would be covered by
the role of patient. However, no data have been adduced where X in
'X needs Y' would be in some kind of undergoer role.<br>
<br>
Maybe the affectation of X here is not the immediate affectation
of a patient, but rather the mediate affectation undergone by the
participant bearing a benefactive role. Then the role of X in 'Z
is (not) good for X' would be the malefactive role; if it is
converted into 'it would be good for X if Z were the case', it is
the benefactive role. This would again be compatible with the
dative often associated with 'need'.<br>
<br>
It remains to say that the experiencer and the benefactive roles
are not entirely disjunct, as far as definitions known to me go.<br>
<br>
Christian<br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de" target="_blank">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu" target="_blank">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>