>>[David] Pautler Says:
>>BTW, your choice of ‘slots’ seems pretty arbitrary to me — maintaining
>>a distinction between WHO’s and WHAT’s at this level seems unimportant
>>compared to the loss of information due to collapsing all actors, recipients,
>>patients, etc. to WHO’s and all causes, intentions, etc. to WHY’s.
> Paolo Leva says:
>The power of this taxonomy (to be developed, of course) is in its intuitive
>power. There is no problem explaining somebody how to recognize a WHO, a WHAT
>and so on. The biggest problem is to convince people trying to approach the
>language from a perspective (apparently) so down to earth.

But what analytical or generative power does your taxonomy provide over
other solutions?  Do you really want to treat the subjects of 1 and 2 as
more alike than those of 2 and 3?

1) What is John holding?
2) What is the reason for Mary’s crying?
3) Why is Mary crying?

>Think about it a little,

What did you think of the work referred to you a few months ago?

        -dp-