New remarks

• The Blind Lexicalization may just be a normal consequence of the Exhaustive Principle
• The utterances must be composed by a cause or initiator in the sense of the init Ramchand (2008) and an eventuality or process (proc). The eventuality may have a result  (res) that can be achieved at the same time the eventuality is being developped or not
• The cause is going to occupy always the same position. This can explain contrasts like:
  
  (1) a. Los niños llegaron
        b. Llegaron los niños
        c. Los niños llegaron a la cima
        d. #Llegaron los niños hasta la cima
  
• Although we are reducing all the phrases to feature nodes, there seem to be other operations that are just used to explain disorders in the structure [cause[eventuality[complements]]. We are talking about the CASE, and maybe other possible elements like applicatives. This has to be well developped. We will have to explain ergative, quirky cases...
• Depending on the kind of eventuality (state or process, but not process in the sense that we have called it before as eventuality, this is a type of eventuality) there are going to be diferent elements in the eventuality: cause, undergoer or theme and result, for example. These elements are always going to be the same but they can be lexicalized by different elements: what have been called verb, verb + 1complement, verb + 2complements... This could explain the contrast between things like matar and hacer morir