Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
428 formally, debeo has a syntax like that of volo and other personal verbs that can take an infinitive, oportet like that of other impersonals, and so on. In describing their meanings one has, at one level, to ignore this and establish a system of contrasts in which, as Dr. Bolkestein argues, oportet and debeo have an identical place. But in the language as a whole it is not a self-contained system: each element in it has its own individual relations to other elements outside it. If debeo is, in effect, an underlying impersonal its opposition to volo (assuming that volo has a personal subject) is made more complex than it should be. If, conversely, oportet is made personal either the other impersonals must be treated likewise or that set of oppositions is obscured. Dr. Bolkestein would, of course, retort that, if oportet and debeo are not treated similarly, their relationship is in turn obscured. The only answer, perhaps, is that oppositions of meaning, such as she is dealing with here, are purely paradigmatic and the attempt to represent them by syntagmatic devices, such as deep structures or semantic frames, is a mistake. University of CAMBRIDGE P. H.
Mnemosyne – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1988
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.