lexical free grammar and Glosa

Karo Glosa-pe,

I’ve got temporarily stumped on the “te defini” project on = my second word, “ad”.

It’s used in various ways in English and I’m guessin= g that except for the “for the purpose” of definition, it is the same. But = the way it is used in English is very complex.

I finally concluded that it= s usage is always implied by the predicate verb. There are 11,000 verbs in = English. There are fewer ways that “to” gets used but the verb always dicta= tes exactly how and it may vary with different verbs.

I was hoping that in= Glosa, “ad” was limited strictly to uses of spatial changes just to make m= y definition easier. I scanned the way it’s used in the various Glosa newsl= etters on the glosa site and found that it is used much the way English use= s it.

I eventually discovered a site on Lexical Functional Grammar which s= hed a lot of light on my dilemma. Apparently, verbs dictate a lot more then= how “ad” is used. They dictate wheter or not the sentence can or must have= an object, whether it can or must have a secondary object and so forth.

A= nyway, there’s a lot more to it then I really have time to put here. I was = just wondering if anyone else has considered how LFG “lexical functional gr= ammar” is used with Glosa.

I think people of different languages using Glo= sa could end up confusing eachother because they will bring over their unco= nscious use of LFG from their Lexicon like in the phrase “I threw the man”.= In some languages this might mean, “I through to the man.” in the same way= in English “I shot the man”. Also consider that “I shot the gun” uses the = verb differently.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

-bill