Uddrag fra Propositions, [Nice1951] 046-0070

3/^1 to define the elation in uestlon (which for want of a name may be called "participation”)| for the are many other semantic relations answering to the »am© definition * in fact superordination in syntax (as usually understood) normally answers to prominence in semantics. Many other »true* tur&l terms lie ready to hand for the »arrowing of the definition t irons- itiv© and intransitive in the logistic sense, commatattonal and permute** tionaJL In the glossemat1c senses, and so on* (For instance the relations expressed by thø cases arc normally perr ratable, not eorcrutc: lol# Such terms have however hardly yet been exploited for the structural deftni- tlon of relations, In the field of linguistics* It Is not only In richness that the semantic relation® exceed the phonemic* To take again the relation whose variants have been united under the common label of "participation”; it wil* be easy to find this cam© relation expressed by a stem-rorphame, moot commonly of the type have * ut then in th group "A has X" two analysis will be necessary i on the one hand there is the relation of participation between A, and the group has X (as in any other verbal group)t on th© other hand there is th same relation between A and X, the verb itself cumulating the semata of participation and other relations. These analyses (ArX end ArYX, In which have plays the roles of g and X respectively) are con- trail Ictory. These contradictory analyses must not h® confused with merely in- different analyses (for instance it i indifferent wl-ether w© regard an inflect ion as affecting a mm or a whole nominal group)« Analyses are Indifferent 'when the whole system can To described with equal eco- nomy and completeness one way or the other, “tit here- neither analysis can be deduced from the other and both are necessary for a complete description of linguistic relations* The principle of non-contradictory analysis, røhich (though often some sacrifice of realism) may be maintained in phonemies, breaks down at th© start on examination of the semantic system*