The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

89
The rather subtle cross-linguistic non-identity can be exemplified by the
following verbal concepts. The Hebrew verb pikpek be- can be interpreted as
‘doubted’ or as ‘questioned’; tamax be- is either ‘supported’ or ‘endorsed’; kine be- is
both ‘envied’ and [was] ‘jealous of’; hegen al is ‘defended’, ‘protected’ and
‘sheltered’; tipel be- can be translated as either ‘dealt with’/’took care of’ or
‘treated’. 55
In order to illustrate a clear cross-linguistic non-identity, consider the verb paga
in Hebrew and its four English translations: ‘hit’, ‘hurt’ ‘damaged’, ‘insulted’. Given
the range of interpretations associated with paga, the most suitable identification of its
internal theta-cluster would be [-c] (Goal). As discussed earlier (see 3.4.3), the [-c]
role, in addition to being interpreted as Goal, is consistent with interpretations such as
Theme and Experiencer ([-c-m], [-c+m], respectively). Therefore both [+human] and
[-human] DPs can realize it, as shown in (95). This is not the case in English. In
English each interpretation associated with paga is carried out by a distinct lexical
entry. Only the internal argument of hit is [-c], which is compatible with both
[+human] and [-human] DPs (96a). The internal arguments of damaged and
hurt/insulted are [-c-m] (Theme) and [-c+m] (Experiencer), respectively. Therefore
hurt/insulted are possible with Rina (96b), but not with negotiations or a wall of
indifference, and damaged is possible only with negotiations (96c): 56
(95) milotav pag’u be-xoma šel adišut /be-rina/ ba-masa-u-matan
words+his hit/hurt/insulted/damaged in-wall of indifference/in-Rina/in+the-negotiations
(96) a. “His words hit a wall of indifference/Rina/?the negotiations.”
b. “His words hurt/insulted Rina/*a wall of indifference/*the negotiations.”
c. “His words damaged the negotiations/*Rina/*a wall of indifference.”
To recapitulate, the realization of concepts is not necessarily identical across
languages. This is what underlies, to some extent, the attested cross-linguistic
variation.
55 The examples in the text should be taken as an illustration. In order to establish that it is typical of
Hebrew PP-verbs to correspond to several verbs in English, a comparison with Accusative verbs is
necessary (Alexis Dimitriadis p.c.).
56 The impossibility of ‘a wall of indifference’ with damaged (96c) is probably due to some kind of
semantic anomaly. With other verbs such as ‘destroyed’ or ‘shattered’ the sentence is fine.