Locative: PLACEWHERE, UNDER, ABOVE

344 This study found examples of all of the possible syntactic valences of AFTER: AFTER X TIME AFTER THIS There are no missing valences. We have found all of the possible valences for BEFORE in our corpus data: BEFORE X TIME BEFORE THIS There are no missing valences. The temporal domain has proven especially unproblematic.

6.11 Locative: PLACEWHERE, UNDER, ABOVE

Our investigation found the following NSM syntactic combinations for PLACE in our database: DO-Clause IN X PLACE HAPPEN-Clause IN X PLACE YOU ARE IN X PLACE SOMEONE IS IN X PLACE SOMETHING IS IN X PLACE The following valences were not found in our database search: I AM IN X PLACE THIS IS IN X PLACE PEOPLE ARE IN X PLACE Predicative PLACE is also relatively rare in our corpus. The valence I AM IN X PLACE can be therefore regarded as an accidental gap in our data. The second valence THIS IS IN X PLACE, I believe is also unnecessary, because the same meaning can be expressed through THIS THING IS IN X PLACE which is a subtype of another valence i.e., SOMETHING IS IN X PLACE. The last valence PEOPLE ARE IN X PLACE is problematic. You can say: 149 pipo stei dis pleis ‘People are in this place’ In this case, however, it seems to me that you are talking about individuals and not PEOPLE in general. I suspect in this case, the NSM specification may be incorrect. While GOOD or perhaps even BIG may be predicated of PEOPLE in general, predicating locations of PEOPLE in general may be stretching things a bit too far. Our search has found the following syntactic combinations for UNDER present in our corpus: 345 I AM UNDER SOMEONE IS UNDER SOMETHING IS UNDER The following patterns were missing in our corpus: YOU ARE UNDER THIS IS UNDER PEOPLE ARE UNDER Since UNDER is also rare in our corpus, it is reasonable to regard the absence of YOU ARE UNDER as an accidental gap in our data. I regard the absence of THIS IS UNDER as incidental, as its semantic load may be carried by the combination THIS THING IS UNDER. I am skeptical of the valence PEOPLE ARE UNDER for the same reasons I am skeptical about the valence PEOPLE ARE IN X PLACE. The following valences for ABOVE were found in our corpus: SOMEONE IS ABOVE SOMETHING IS ABOVE The following valences were missing from our corpus: I AM ABOVE YOU ARE ABOVE PEOPLE ARE ABOVE THIS IS ABOVE Since ABOVE is very rare in our corpus, it is reasonable to regard the absence of YOU ARE ABOVE and I AM ABOVE as accidental gaps in our data. Likewise the absence of THIS IS ABOVE is incidental, as its semantic load may be carried by the combination THIS THING IS ABOVE. I am also skeptical of the valence PEOPLE ARE ABOVE for the same reasons I am skeptical about the valence PEOPLE ARE IN X PLACE. I should mention at this point that it has never been clear to me why two separate primitives are needed UNDER and ABOVE appear to be perfect conversives, i.e., X IS UNDER Y always implies Y IS ABOVE X and vice-versa. 1 1 Stan Starosta p.c. pointed out to me the following interesting counter-example. One can say: 150 The writing was under the paint. However, it seems rather strange to say: 151 ?? The paint was above the writing. Currently my only response is that it is possible that this is a separate sense of under, one which does not pay attention to vertical orientation. 346

6.12 PartonomyTaxonomy: PART OF, KIND OF