The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

86
asserted ‘belief’. In other words, we do expect Yosi to have some properties which
can cause Dan to believe in him.
This intuitive contrast between (88) and (89) regarding the relevance of the
properties of the object to the meaning of the verb is not accidental. Consider the
following observation.
The property/ies of the object can be made (linguistically) explicit, as in (90a),
(91a). In context, (90a) and (91a) can be replaced by (90b), (91b), respectively. (90b),
(91b) are (at least) strong implications of (90a), (91a), and therefore they are
interchangeable. Crucially, there is no such relation between (92a) (some property of
Dan) and (92b). (92a) featuring the verbs ‘love’/’hate’ does not imply (92b), although
it may be the case that both are (accidentally) true. Therefore, replacing (92a) by
(92b) is impossible.
(90) a. I believe in Dan’s potential.
b. I believe in Dan.
(91) a. I rely on Dan’s punctuality/honesty.
b. I rely on Dan.
(92) a. I love/hate Dan’s sense of humor/honesty.
b. I love/hate Dan.
I propose that the irrelevance of the properties of the object to the meaning of the
verb correlates with the /-c specification of the internal theta-cluster assigned by the
verb. The following can be viewed as the rationale behind the proposed correlation.
Assuming that an object is a name and the sum of its properties, it is the properties,
rather than the name, which can cause something. If the properties of an
object/argument are irrelevant to the meaning (expressed by a verb), but only the
name is, the object cannot be interpreted as the cause.
In light of that, consider the following pair, where the irrelevance vs. relevance of
the properties of the object is especially clear:
(93) Despite the fact that it was a bad movie, in any possible respect, I liked it.