(For CC,c.3/5. From Taylor)

1. Losing money. The following sentences contain the identical expression 
I lost $1,000.
	(i) a. I lost $1,000 in the street. (My wallet containing the bills fell 
		out of my pocket.)
            b. I lost $1,000 on the Stock Exchange. (I made a bad investment.)

In both cases, I end up $1,000 the poorer. From this point of view, I lost
$1,000 has the same meaning in both sentences. Yet the actual process of
losing the money, whether on the street or on the Stock Exchange, is differ-
ent. Note that the two situations give rise to different entailments.
	(ii) a. If I Iose $1,000 in the street (because my wallet containing the bills
		falls out of my pocket), there is a chance that I might find 
		my $1,000 again.

	     b. If I Iose $1,000 on the Stock Exchange (because of a bad investment),
		there is the possibility that I might recover my $1,000 (by making 
		another, more successful investment), but there is no possibility 
		that I might find my $1,000 again.
How might one explain these different entailments? Is the verb lose poly-
semous? Is the expression $1,000 polysemous? Does find have one, or more
than one meaning? What conditions have to be met for it to be appropriate
for me to say that I `found' $1,000? And what conditions would have to be
met for me to be able to say that I found my $1,000 `again'?

2. Leaving the University. The following has two distinct interpretations.
	(i)   Mike left the University a short time ago.
(If you find it difficult to get the two interpretations, try replacing
a short time ago, first, with ten minutes ago, and then with 
ten years ago.) Which words, if any, in this sentence can reasonably be 
regarded as polysemous? What inferences can you draw about Mike and 
his relationship to the University on the two interpretations?

3. Full of beer. Consider the ways in which the following sentences are
interpreted:
	(i)  The bottle is full of beer.
	(ii)  The container is full of beer.
	(iii) The fridge is full of beer.
Is the manner in which the beer 'fills' the bottle in (i) analogous to the
manner in which the beer `fills' the fridge in (iii)? What kind of container do
you imagine in (ii)? How could one account for these effects?

4. In. In its spatial uses, in designates a relation of containment.
The following seems to hold:
	(i) If a is in b, a occupies a place that is contained within the place that is
	occupied by b.
While this characterization may be generally true, the manner of containment
is conceptualized differently, according to the nature of the container and the
contained. How is the containment relation conceptualized in the following?	
	(ii)    the water in the vase
		the crack in the vase
		the flowers in the vase
		the umbrella in my hand
		the car in the street
		the money in my hand
		the diamond in the ring
		the light bulb in the socket
Sometimes, more than one conceptualization is available:
	(iii) 	the cigarette in my mouth
		the splinter in my hand
		ten children (standing) in a circle
Given the characterization in (i), the following should hold. (Technically, in
expresses a transitive relation.)
	(iv) if a is in b, and b is in c, then a is in c.
Does (iv) apply to the following?                                          `
	(v) 	The money is in my briefcase.
		My briefcase is in my car.
		Therefore, the money is in my car.
	(vi)    The documents are in my car.	
		My car is in the car park.
		Therefore, the documents are in the car park.
	(vii)   The flowers are in the vase.	
		The vase is in my hand.
		Therefore, the flowers are in my hand.

5. Near the house.  Chomsky (2000: 35-6) drew attention to some 
(for him) curious aspects of the word house. If you paint the
house brown, you (typically) paint only the exterior shell of the house. (Not all
parts of the exterior, though; you wouldn't paint the window panes brown, for
example.) It you see the house, you see its exterior; you are not able (accord-
ing to Chomsky) to `see the house' if you are sitting inside it. House, in these
examples, therefore designates the exterior walls of a building.
Suppose, now, that two people, Irene and Olga, are each located three
metres from the exterior wall of a house. lrene is inside the house, three
metres from the wall; Olga is outside the house, three metres from the wall.
We could say that Olga is `near the house', but we could not say the same of
Irene. How can we explain this, given that house is able to designate the
exterior walls of a building?

Another question raised by Chomsky's observations is the following: What
do you do if you clean the house? Is the expression open to different inter-
pretations? Consider what a house-painter might mean, if he has to `clean
the house' before painting it. Which facets of a house are involved if we say
that the house is a mess?