Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nomenclature Question
21 views
Skip to first unread message
DKleinecke
Mar 31, 2013, 10:36:43 PM3/31/13
to
I have been looking through the literature and I can not find any name
for the construction used in sentences like "The first is that it is
illegal". I wonder if anyone can help me.
The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
sentence and S a subject)
S V (that) $
In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
and "wish" occurred without "that".
Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
in $).
This construction and these verbs (which include "say") must have
gotten some attention in the eochomshian era because they are a way of
making arbitrarily long sentences.
for the construction used in sentences like "The first is that it is
illegal". I wonder if anyone can help me.
The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
sentence and S a subject)
S V (that) $
In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
and "wish" occurred without "that".
Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
in $).
This construction and these verbs (which include "say") must have
gotten some attention in the eochomshian era because they are a way of
making arbitrarily long sentences.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Apr 1, 2013, 4:39:13 PM4/1/13
to
On Apr 1, 3:36 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been looking through the literature and I can not find any name
> for the construction used in sentences like "The first is that it is
> illegal". I wonder if anyone can help me.
>
> The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
> sentence and S a subject)
> S V (that) $
> In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
> with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
> and "wish" occurred without "that".
>
> Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
> word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
> the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
> in $).
I'm not sure what the "it" in this sentence is referring to.
> I have been looking through the literature and I can not find any name
> for the construction used in sentences like "The first is that it is
> illegal". I wonder if anyone can help me.
>
> The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
> sentence and S a subject)
> S V (that) $
> In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
> with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
> and "wish" occurred without "that".
>
> Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
> word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
> the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
> in $).
> This construction and these verbs (which include "say") must have
> gotten some attention in the eochomshian era because they are a way of
> making arbitrarily long sentences.
The first [sc.reason,problem,etc.] is that it is illegal.
This seems to me like a straight equational copula sentence. You could
invert subject and complement to get:
That it is illegal is the first [reason etc.].
with essentially the same meaning. Or am I missing your point?
Nathan Sanders
Apr 1, 2013, 9:11:59 PM4/1/13
to
In article
<1b76e75b-ba5f-4740...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I agree. I understand that the original sentence feels cleft-ish
because of the "that" clause, but it seems to be a simple copula to me.
As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example sentences, so I
don't really know what kind of sentences he was referring to.
Something like these?
(1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
(2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
(3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments, semantically
and syntactically selected by the verb. The only noteworthy
properties that I can see is that verbs in (1) require "that", while
most verbs don't (2,3), and (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the
subject (which is usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very
well represent a fundamentally different kind of structure than (1)
and (2)).
I don't know why the verbs in (1) require "that" but those in (2) do
not, or why some verbs in (2) seem more tolerant of optional "that"
than others do.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
<1b76e75b-ba5f-4740...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
because of the "that" clause, but it seems to be a simple copula to me.
As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example sentences, so I
don't really know what kind of sentences he was referring to.
Something like these?
(1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
(2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
(3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments, semantically
and syntactically selected by the verb. The only noteworthy
properties that I can see is that verbs in (1) require "that", while
most verbs don't (2,3), and (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the
subject (which is usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very
well represent a fundamentally different kind of structure than (1)
and (2)).
I don't know why the verbs in (1) require "that" but those in (2) do
not, or why some verbs in (2) seem more tolerant of optional "that"
than others do.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Brian M. Scott
Apr 1, 2013, 9:44:39 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:11:59 -0400, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-BAF045...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example
> sentences, so I don't really know what kind of sentences
> he was referring to. Something like these?
> (1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
> (2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
> (3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
> As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments,
> semantically and syntactically selected by the verb. The
> only noteworthy properties that I can see is that verbs
> in (1) require "that", while most verbs don't (2,3), and
> (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the subject (which is
> usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very well
> represent a fundamentally different kind of structure
> than (1) and (2)).
I'm not one of them, but I'm pretty sure that some speakers
can use 'find' without 'that'. I can't use 'hid' in that
context at all. I pretty much do require 'that' after
'heard', 'learned', and 'seems', and very rarely omit it
after 'think' (I'm also aware that this is somewhat
idiosyncratic; I just don't know *how* idiosyncratic it is.)
[...]
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-BAF045...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example
> sentences, so I don't really know what kind of sentences
> he was referring to. Something like these?
> (1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
> (2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
> (3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
> As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments,
> semantically and syntactically selected by the verb. The
> only noteworthy properties that I can see is that verbs
> in (1) require "that", while most verbs don't (2,3), and
> (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the subject (which is
> usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very well
> represent a fundamentally different kind of structure
> than (1) and (2)).
can use 'find' without 'that'. I can't use 'hid' in that
context at all. I pretty much do require 'that' after
'heard', 'learned', and 'seems', and very rarely omit it
after 'think' (I'm also aware that this is somewhat
idiosyncratic; I just don't know *how* idiosyncratic it is.)
[...]
Brian
DKleinecke
Apr 1, 2013, 9:56:06 PM4/1/13
to
On Apr 1, 6:11 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <1b76e75b-ba5f-4740-87cd-26000f747...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I see I got a little ahead of myself. I am developing the point of
view that the copula should not be treated as a (ordinary) verb but as
a sui generis construction. But obviously there are many parallels.
In this world there is no such thing as a "straight equational copula
sentence" (which I consider too clumsy to use as a name). The
construction that really interests me is the special case
It is that ....
where "it" is the empty sentence initial word (as in a cleft) and
the ...following "that" is a complete sentence.
Turns out that examples of what I mean are hard to come by. The best
I have located comes from Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a
Birmingham Jail"
"Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
Supreme Court, for it is morally right; ... "
There seem to be multiple examples in the King James Bible. These I
do not use for obvious reasons. But they might have influenced King.
I have seen one text that used this construction frequently. Now I
wonder whether that text was not native English and I wonder what
first language I should assume. The author's name suggests Hindi - but
one can no longer trust names. I really want to limit my parsing to
native English.
> In article
> <1b76e75b-ba5f-4740-87cd-26000f747...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
view that the copula should not be treated as a (ordinary) verb but as
a sui generis construction. But obviously there are many parallels.
In this world there is no such thing as a "straight equational copula
sentence" (which I consider too clumsy to use as a name). The
construction that really interests me is the special case
It is that ....
where "it" is the empty sentence initial word (as in a cleft) and
the ...following "that" is a complete sentence.
Turns out that examples of what I mean are hard to come by. The best
I have located comes from Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a
Birmingham Jail"
"Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
Supreme Court, for it is morally right; ... "
There seem to be multiple examples in the King James Bible. These I
do not use for obvious reasons. But they might have influenced King.
I have seen one text that used this construction frequently. Now I
wonder whether that text was not native English and I wonder what
first language I should assume. The author's name suggests Hindi - but
one can no longer trust names. I really want to limit my parsing to
native English.
Brian M. Scott
Apr 1, 2013, 11:24:29 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:a977875a-dd03-48e3...@kk11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Turns out that examples of what I mean are hard to come by. The best
> I have located comes from Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a
> Birmingham Jail"
> "Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
> Supreme Court, for it is morally right; ... "
It seems to me either elliptical for 'Thus it is the case
that ...' or a simple inversion of 'It is thus [= in this
manner, or for this reason] that ...'.
[...]
Brian
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:a977875a-dd03-48e3...@kk11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Turns out that examples of what I mean are hard to come by. The best
> I have located comes from Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a
> Birmingham Jail"
> "Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
> Supreme Court, for it is morally right; ... "
that ...' or a simple inversion of 'It is thus [= in this
manner, or for this reason] that ...'.
[...]
Brian
Curlytop
Apr 2, 2013, 2:16:56 PM4/2/13
to
DKleinecke set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
> The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
> sentence and S a subject)
> S V (that) $
> In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
> with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
> and "wish" occurred without "that".
>
> Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
> word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
> the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
> in $).
Dunno cleft but I see it as a perfectly natural construction, OK if not
overdone.
Perhaps I'm biased because this is a perfectly natural way of expressing
anything in my conlang Hallon. Quite possibly Hallon has been structured
after the way I think (Sapir-Whorf in reverse) so such constructions are
natural to me.
On business in France once, I and a colleague burst out laughing at hearing
the perfectly ordinary English words "gravy train" in the middle of a
French news broadcast. Now my French isn't good enough to follow a news
broadcast in real time - and our hosts knew it - so the boss asked us why
we were laughing. I replied in my best schoolboy French: "Nous risons à
qu'il n'y a pas de mots français pour «gravy train», il faut utiliser les
mots anglais." He understood, but I wondered afterwards (which is why my
words have stuck in my mind), is this construction valid in French? Can a
subordinate clause introduced by «que» be something to laugh at?
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
continuum:
> The pattern involved is (in my notation - I use $ to indicate a
> sentence and S a subject)
> S V (that) $
> In a recent text I parsed, the verbs "be", "find" and "heard" occurred
> with "that" and verbs "imagine", "learn", "seem", "realize", "thinK"
> and "wish" occurred without "that".
>
> Structurally this resembles a cleft. But it is not a cleft as that
> word is usually used. Semantically it acts like a clause modifier of
> the $ (and its correlates in some languages are modifiers of the verb
> in $).
overdone.
Perhaps I'm biased because this is a perfectly natural way of expressing
anything in my conlang Hallon. Quite possibly Hallon has been structured
after the way I think (Sapir-Whorf in reverse) so such constructions are
natural to me.
On business in France once, I and a colleague burst out laughing at hearing
the perfectly ordinary English words "gravy train" in the middle of a
French news broadcast. Now my French isn't good enough to follow a news
broadcast in real time - and our hosts knew it - so the boss asked us why
we were laughing. I replied in my best schoolboy French: "Nous risons à
qu'il n'y a pas de mots français pour «gravy train», il faut utiliser les
mots anglais." He understood, but I wondered afterwards (which is why my
words have stuck in my mind), is this construction valid in French? Can a
subordinate clause introduced by «que» be something to laugh at?
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2013, 3:10:28 PM4/2/13
to
that) or "parce qu'" (because).
Can you say, in English, "we were laughing (at) that there are no
French words ..."?
António Marques
Apr 2, 2013, 4:05:07 PM4/2/13
to
On Apr 2, 2:44 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:11:59 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:11:59 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <news:sanders-BAF045...@news.eternal-september.org>
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example
> > sentences, so I don't really know what kind of sentences
> > he was referring to. Something like these?
> > (1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
> > (2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
> > (3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
> > As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments,
> > semantically and syntactically selected by the verb. The
> > only noteworthy properties that I can see is that verbs
> > in (1) require "that", while most verbs don't (2,3), and
> > (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the subject (which is
> > usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very well
> > represent a fundamentally different kind of structure
> > than (1) and (2)).
>
> I'm not one of them, but I'm pretty sure that some speakers
> can use 'find' without 'that'.
(I'm sure I've heard it without, as well as 'overlook'. In fact I'd be
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > As for the other verbs, he didn't give any example
> > sentences, so I don't really know what kind of sentences
> > he was referring to. Something like these?
> > (1) I find/hid/observe/overlooked/etc. that John is untrustworthy
> > (2) I heard/learned/think/etc. (that) John is untrustworthy.
> > (3) It seems (that) John is untrustworthy.
> > As far as I can tell, these are just normal arguments,
> > semantically and syntactically selected by the verb. The
> > only noteworthy properties that I can see is that verbs
> > in (1) require "that", while most verbs don't (2,3), and
> > (3) has a dummy expletive "it" as the subject (which is
> > usually linked to extraposition, so (3) could very well
> > represent a fundamentally different kind of structure
> > than (1) and (2)).
>
> I'm not one of them, but I'm pretty sure that some speakers
> can use 'find' without 'that'.
hard pressed to produce a verb which I have only heard with 'that',
though I have the feeling there is at least one. Unless the context
here is some specific dialect.)
> I can't use 'hid' in that context at all.
it is a form of _hide_ 'conceal', nor can I find any other definition
for it. Is it supposed to mean 'I concealed [the fact] that John is
untrustworthy'? If so, it's a usage I'd never seen.
Curlytop
Apr 2, 2013, 4:35:42 PM4/2/13
to
Peter T. Daniels set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
>> Perhaps I'm biased because this is a perfectly natural way of expressing
>> anything in my conlang Hallon. Quite possibly Hallon has been structured
>> after the way I think (Sapir-Whorf in reverse) so such constructions are
>> natural to me.
>>
>> On business in France once, I and a colleague burst out laughing at
>> hearing the perfectly ordinary English words "gravy train" in the middle
>> of a French news broadcast. Now my French isn't good enough to follow a
>> news broadcast in real time - and our hosts knew it - so the boss asked
>> us why we were laughing. I replied in my best schoolboy French: "Nous
>> risons à qu'il n'y a pas de mots français pour «gravy train», il faut
>> utiliser les mots anglais." He understood, but I wondered afterwards
>> (which is why my words have stuck in my mind), is this construction valid
>> in French? Can a subordinate clause introduced by «que» be something to
>> laugh at?
>
> Just as in English, you could have said "au fait que" (at the fact
> that) or "parce qu'" (because).
>
> Can you say, in English, "we were laughing (at) that there are no
> French words ..."?
It wouldn't sound right with either "at" or "that" missing, and it's
questionable in English and French even with both words in. English would
definitely require "the fact that" or similar included. The point I was
making was that the sentence as it stood was a perfectly normal Hallon
construction (requiring the equivalents of both "at" and "that", but no
other words), translated too literally into French.
continuum:
>> Perhaps I'm biased because this is a perfectly natural way of expressing
>> anything in my conlang Hallon. Quite possibly Hallon has been structured
>> after the way I think (Sapir-Whorf in reverse) so such constructions are
>> natural to me.
>>
>> On business in France once, I and a colleague burst out laughing at
>> hearing the perfectly ordinary English words "gravy train" in the middle
>> of a French news broadcast. Now my French isn't good enough to follow a
>> news broadcast in real time - and our hosts knew it - so the boss asked
>> us why we were laughing. I replied in my best schoolboy French: "Nous
>> risons à qu'il n'y a pas de mots français pour «gravy train», il faut
>> utiliser les mots anglais." He understood, but I wondered afterwards
>> (which is why my words have stuck in my mind), is this construction valid
>> in French? Can a subordinate clause introduced by «que» be something to
>> laugh at?
>
> Just as in English, you could have said "au fait que" (at the fact
> that) or "parce qu'" (because).
>
> Can you say, in English, "we were laughing (at) that there are no
> French words ..."?
questionable in English and French even with both words in. English would
definitely require "the fact that" or similar included. The point I was
making was that the sentence as it stood was a perfectly normal Hallon
construction (requiring the equivalents of both "at" and "that", but no
other words), translated too literally into French.
Arnaud Fournet
Apr 2, 2013, 4:36:46 PM4/2/13
to
anyway risons is not correct French.
Nous rions is correct.
I would personally translate this into reasonable French as:
nous rions/nous nous moquons de l'absence de mots français pour traduire «gravy train», la seule solution pour cela est d'utiliser des mot anglais.
A.
***
Nathan Sanders
Apr 2, 2013, 4:49:54 PM4/2/13
to
In article
<94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, as in the following examples taken from Google:
For years, I hid that I had diabetes.
I hid that I had a hearing problem at my first job interview
He hid that he was smoking and I hid that I had cheated.
Why are you hiding that you are a Christian?
Obama's hiding that he is gay and was married to a man.
perhaps hiding that he already has a boyfriend
Why would a man hide that he has cialis
I'll fight like hell to hide that I've given up.
I cannot hide that I'm in love with you
I like how the shadow hides that I needed to shave
The facade hides that all the power is held by the army
he hides that he's a vendor while maligning his competitors
<94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
For years, I hid that I had diabetes.
I hid that I had a hearing problem at my first job interview
He hid that he was smoking and I hid that I had cheated.
Why are you hiding that you are a Christian?
Obama's hiding that he is gay and was married to a man.
perhaps hiding that he already has a boyfriend
Why would a man hide that he has cialis
I'll fight like hell to hide that I've given up.
I cannot hide that I'm in love with you
I like how the shadow hides that I needed to shave
The facade hides that all the power is held by the army
he hides that he's a vendor while maligning his competitors
Brian M. Scott
Apr 2, 2013, 6:22:18 PM4/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:49:54 -0400, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-1B6B2C...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Ant�nio Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2:44�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>>�I can't use 'hid' in that context at all.
>> Now for the reason I came here - I can't make sense of this 'hid' if
>> it is a form of _hide_ 'conceal', nor can I find any other definition
>> for it. Is it supposed to mean 'I concealed [the fact] that John is
>> untrustworthy'? If so, it's a usage I'd never seen.
> Yes, as in the following examples taken from Google:
> For years, I hid that I had diabetes.
> I hid that I had a hearing problem at my first job interview
> He hid that he was smoking and I hid that I had cheated.
> Why are you hiding that you are a Christian?
> Obama's hiding that he is gay and was married to a man.
> perhaps hiding that he already has a boyfriend
> Why would a man hide that he has cialis
> I'll fight like hell to hide that I've given up.
> I cannot hide that I'm in love with you
> I like how the shadow hides that I needed to shave
> The facade hides that all the power is held by the army
> he hides that he's a vendor while maligning his competitors
Yep; it's not uncommon, I think. But I have obligatory 'the
fact that' after this 'hid'.
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-1B6B2C...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Ant�nio Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2:44�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>�I can't use 'hid' in that context at all.
>> Now for the reason I came here - I can't make sense of this 'hid' if
>> it is a form of _hide_ 'conceal', nor can I find any other definition
>> for it. Is it supposed to mean 'I concealed [the fact] that John is
>> untrustworthy'? If so, it's a usage I'd never seen.
> Yes, as in the following examples taken from Google:
> For years, I hid that I had diabetes.
> I hid that I had a hearing problem at my first job interview
> He hid that he was smoking and I hid that I had cheated.
> Why are you hiding that you are a Christian?
> Obama's hiding that he is gay and was married to a man.
> perhaps hiding that he already has a boyfriend
> Why would a man hide that he has cialis
> I'll fight like hell to hide that I've given up.
> I cannot hide that I'm in love with you
> I like how the shadow hides that I needed to shave
> The facade hides that all the power is held by the army
> he hides that he's a vendor while maligning his competitors
fact that' after this 'hid'.
Brian
anal...@hotmail.com
Apr 2, 2013, 7:21:38 PM4/2/13
to
> <94a32979-09f1-4931-b582-a4ec61ccf...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have heard constructions like "Being that its late at night I aint
cooking" from natives. Is it kosher?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have heard constructions like "Being that its late at night I aint
cooking" from natives. Is it kosher?
António Marques
Apr 2, 2013, 11:16:54 PM4/2/13
to
Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Ok. Many of those don't sound as unfamiliar. Maybe it was a combination of
having a different subject in each clause and the semantics of 'being
untrustworthy', which is a judgement rather than raw data, that made me
find the original so strange.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders
> In article
> <94a32979-09f1-4931...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
having a different subject in each clause and the semantics of 'being
untrustworthy', which is a judgement rather than raw data, that made me
find the original so strange.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders
0 new messages