Semantics class with Fiona - davidsonian and neo-davidsonian, as well as thematic roles.
interesting stuff.

For my own part, two questions come to mind.
1.) (last first) why doestn jackendoff (and or later authors who are working with thematic roles) enforce spatial locality strictly. it seems that the subtle ambiguity surrounding "recipient" might be consistently describable in terms of location, given that we define the existence of any particular agent by our capacity to define the spatial location for that agent at such-and-such a time. Problems of materialism/idealism arrise, but, they tend to arise regardless.

2.) it seems (going from the prof and what is supposedly written in the text) that many semanticists prefer davidsonian over neo-davidsonian structures. I have a feeling this is because it is "easier" in the linguistic sense, for a native speaker to allow the "language" do the metaphorical extensions of the argument/adverb application to the statement. however, this seems the lazy way out. Perhaps i dont understand what is actualyl happening, but i would think that a neo-davidsonian system should be prefered.
It would be fun to attempt to implement something like an n-D comparator/inquisitor function in prolog or Lisp or scheme (scheme maybe?) though the relational stuff seems to lend itself to a more OO implementation... food for thought at least.