Be and Have in Arabic, English and German
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
they can be main verbs and auxiliaries in spite of E-Prime's
objections.
1.These two verbs, however, are missing in Arabic (I have heard in
Russian too) in the imperfect tense (present). "Be" disappears
completely on the open surface and "have" is substituted mostly by
the preposition: 3inda: with, by.... although other prepositions like:
ma3a "with", li "for", ladayya (very forma)l "at/in (my)
hand" can also be used. Of course ka:na "was/were" is used in the
perfect, present and the future. Sometimes pronouns like "huwa" and
"hiya": s/he, can fill this deficiency and laysa "be not" in the
negative present is used. In addition the verb yujad/tujad "there
is/are" and the question word "hal" the particle "?a" in
negative questions can replace "be". Does this say anything about
old time Arab attitude to possession?
2. In German as in other language we cannot dispense with "be" and
"have" not only because of their prime meanings but also in making
compound tenses. Could it be that the dying process of the preterite
in German and the switch to perfect tense be explained in connection
with "be" and "have" which are also used to form the perfect
tenses. "Ich habe gegessen" instead of ich ,,aß" and ,,ich bin
gefahren" instead of ,,ich fuhr". The past tense of strong verbs
doesn't sound only cumbersome but is also detached from the present.
Since "be" and "have" are used in the present they provide
relevancy to the present as with present perfect tense in BE although
AmE sometimes replaces present perfect with past simple maybe because
it is shorter and Americans like it fast as with their fast food. If so
length and complexity of a tense doesn't play a more important role
than relevancy? In other words past tense is becoming less important
because of the paradigm shift to the present. The demise of the past in
our modern, fast, technologically orientated life? Does this switch say
anything about the present time attitude to possession?
Regards
Jamshid
John Atkinson
"Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim" <Jdib...@aol.com> wrote...
> The two verbs mentioned are central in nearly all languages.
What an absurd statement! Around half the world's languages don't have a
verbal copula (they don't just omit it in the present tense, as Russian and
Swahili do). I don't know the proportion that don't use "have" for
possession (like Russian, and, according to what you say, Arabic), but
there's a hell of a lot of them.
John.
Alan
"Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim" <Jdib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131883901.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The two verbs mentioned are central in nearly all languages. In English
they can be main verbs and auxiliaries in spite of E-Prime's
objections.
1.These two verbs, however, are missing in Arabic (I have heard in
Russian too) in the imperfect tense (present). "Be" disappears
completely on the open surface and "have" is substituted mostly by
the preposition: 3inda: with, by.... although other prepositions like:
ma3a "with", li "for", ladayya (very forma)l "at/in (my)
hand" can also be used. Of course ka:na "was/were" is used in the
perfect, present and the future. Sometimes pronouns like "huwa" and
"hiya": s/he, can fill this deficiency and laysa "be not" in the
negative present is used. In addition the verb yujad/tujad "there
is/are" and the question word "hal" the particle "?a" in
negative questions can replace "be". Does this say anything about
old time Arab attitude to possession?
. . .
Regards
Jamshid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, Dr J, I think you're onto something here. Looks like the "old time
Arab attitude" toward possession was markedly prepositional.
From the variety of prepositions, can we further infer that the "old time"
Arabs were rather possessive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
>
> The two verbs mentioned are central in nearly all languages.
For gods' sakes, you are such an ignoramus.
Learn something about language and languages before you post here again.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
> Gee, Dr J, I think you're onto something here. Looks like the "old time
> Arab attitude" toward possession was markedly prepositional.
>
> From the variety of prepositions, can we further infer that the "old time"
> Arabs were rather possessive?
I am afraid you can't because prepositions refer to location here and
not to possession. But I think our world has become very possessive. It
is not enough to have the corresponding verbs like: have, own, possess
but we need them to form the compound tenses too. This is indeed a
possession obsession. Even the past tense is dying as we have discussed
elsewhere because there is no have in it. But what do you think of the
abscence of "be" in Arabic on the surface structure in the present. I
never thought half of the languages in the world can do without "have".
If so I am sure they are NOT Westeuropean but more primitive (please
understand the natural meaning of the word) ie less possessive.
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Alan wrote:
> Arab attitude" toward possession was markedly prepositional.
It is clear but the question is: why was possession prepositional?
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
.
>
> For gods' sakes, you are such an ignoramus.
>
> Learn something about language and languages before you post here again.
This an example of spamming I mean the American product of poor quality
kept in tins.
Alan
EXPRESSION of ownership and being. If, as you apparently think, the
"old-time Arabs " were unconcerned about possession, how do you explain such
"old-time" words such as saraq ("to steal")(and please don't come up with
that crap that "it sounds like an early loan word", as you did (with no
evidence at all) with the word haraq) --- if ownership was not conceived of,
then how could theft be conceived of?
As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble savage"
notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
And, by the way, you just don't recognize sarcasm, do you?
Miguel Carrasquer
Surely there are more languages to which there is a verbal
copula than there are that have "have".
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Alan wrote:
> Dr J, you're confusing the CONCEPT of ownership and being with the
> EXPRESSION of ownership and being. If, as you apparently think, the
> "old-time Arabs " were unconcerned about possession, how do you explain such
> "old-time" words such as saraq ("to steal")(and please don't come up with
> that crap that "it sounds like an early loan word", as you did (with no
> evidence at all) with the word haraq) --- if ownership was not conceived of,
> then how could theft be conceived of?
> As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
> others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble savage"
> notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
>
> And, by the way, you just don't recognize sarcasm, do you?
I wouldn't claim that "saraqa" is an early loan. In addition why should
the existence of such a word interfere with the concept of ownership. I
mean no society is completely free from vile. Don't you think in
natural societies such as that of the old time Arabs, ownership didn't
play an important role in life. Perhaps the feminine gender and the
singularity of the adj. for the plural apart from human beings is an
indication. When Islam appeared on the scene and when the Arabs had
changed by then, Quran repeatedly accused them of amassing wealth and
calling for old Arab virtues such as hospitality which is still
legendary. The prophet even accused his uncle Abu Lahab: tabbat yada:
abi lahabin wa tabba ma: aghna: 3anhu ma:luhu wa ma: kasabe......
As for West European possessive affection why do you think I am
misguided? Explain please.
But Please Alan, your tone and choice of some vocabulary is still a
problem. After all I have had enough of Daniels indecencent behaviour
who has nothing to say except to insult. I have never seen such a pest
and dirty big mouth.
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> Surely there are more languages to which there is a verbal
> copula than there are that have "have".
Such general statements get us nowhere. Of course sometimes for example
English uses "be" instead of the German "have" as in:
English: It's my birthday today.
German: Ich habe heute Geburtstag.
English: you are right.
German: Du hast Recht.
The game of "be" and "have" can also be seen psychologically (see Erich
Fromm).
Peter T. Daniels
You don't even know what "spam" means.
Your assertion that most languages have words equivalent to "be" and
"have" is a flat-out lie, and we're sick of your lies about language.
Miguel Carrasquer
<Jdib...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>
>> Surely there are more languages to which there is a verbal
>> copula than there are that have "have".
>
>
>Such general statements get us nowhere.
Yes they do: this one happens to be true. The overwhelming
majority of the world's languages do not have a verb "to
Alan
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4377C0...@worldnet.att.net...
To say that Dr J is lying is to assume that he is aware of the truth. He's
not. He takes what few facts he actually some grasp of and rushes headlong
into the fabrication of others in order to back up his wild and irrational
speculations. Technically, not a liar --- just a garden variety fool.
Alan
You DO have trouble reading carefully, don't you? I didn't say that your
notion that Western Europeans were possessive was misguided. I said that
your notion that they were **more possessive** than others was misguided.
Here, let me put it out in front of you again (perhaps this time you'll read
it):
"As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble savage"
notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny"
P.S. I'm a little puzzled by your quoting the first 2 lines of al-Masad
(Qur'an, chapter 111) (and incidentally ascribing the words to Muhammad) as
an "accusation".
Abu Lahab is being cursed.
He is not being accused of anything.
(Neither he (nor his wife) is "accused" of anything in the remaining 3
lines)
I suggest that you not only read more carefully, but also that you speak
more carefully, especially if you're going to have the audacity to quote
the Qur'an to back up your fanciful notions.
Peter T. Daniels
Bush is now claiming that he wasn't lying when he based the invasion on
the presence of WMD. The Dems aren't buying it: _someone_ had the
correct intelligence, and it was kept from the Senate and the People.
The SPQA, as it were.
So if we can keep saying Bush lied, then so can we of "Jamshid."
Paul J Kriha
Alan <in_fla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3Qdf.26279$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
That may be so. But in that last PTD's sentence Peter didn't say
JI was a liar, he said what JI said was a flat-out lie. :-)
An untrue categorical statement no matter who said it or what
moved him to do so is a lie. Isn't it? Or is there a third category
there for speakers who don't know what they are talking about? :-)
pjk
Ekkehard Dengler
Paul J Kriha schrieb:
> An untrue categorical statement no matter who said it or what
> moved him to do so is a lie.
You've just made an untrue categorical statement that is not a lie ;-)
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>To say that Dr J is lying is to assume that he is aware of the truth. He's
>not. He takes what few facts he actually some grasp of and rushes headlong
>into the fabrication of others in order to back up his wild and irrational
>speculations. Technically, not a liar --- just a garden variety fool.
Only those who know everything are allowed to write in this group?
What's the use of discussing things if everybody already knows
everything?
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
James Dalgleish
everything? Why can't we all just celebrate our wonderful interest
together, as so few share it, and leave out the venom?
Peter T. Daniels
No. There's a difference between a lie and an unwitting untrue
statement. Thus, I'm uneasy when Scott McClellan is accused of lying to
the press when he says he spoke to Libbey and Rove and knows they didn't
leak anything. The Administration lies all the time, but unless the
press secretary knows that his statements are untrue, he himself is not
lying.
But it's hard to believe that "Jamshid Ibrahim" has never been exposed
to anything about language or linguistics, since he seems to be aware of
some technical terminology.
> Or is there a third category
> there for speakers who don't know what they are talking about? :-)
Dupe?
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>But it's hard to believe that "Jamshid Ibrahim" has never been exposed
>to anything about language or linguistics, since he seems to be aware of
>some technical terminology.
He has a name that is easy to Google:
http://www.usingenglish.com/profiles/jamshid-ibrahim.html
http://www.fzhb.uni-bremen.de/82.0.html?&tx_fzhbkursdb_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=99&cHash=1cdf0f3de9
Des Small
> Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:12:59 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>
> >But it's hard to believe that "Jamshid Ibrahim" has never been exposed
> >to anything about language or linguistics, since he seems to be aware of
> >some technical terminology.
>
> He has a name that is easy to Google:
> http://www.usingenglish.com/profiles/jamshid-ibrahim.html
This credits him with a "PhD in General Linguistics".
Des
can see why the accrediting institution has sought anonymity
Lukas Pietsch
>>>But it's hard to believe that "Jamshid Ibrahim" has never been exposed
>>>to anything about language or linguistics, since he seems to be aware of
>>>some technical terminology.
>>
>>He has a name that is easy to Google:
>>http://www.usingenglish.com/profiles/jamshid-ibrahim.html
>
> This credits him with a "PhD in General Linguistics".
>
> Des
> can see why the accrediting institution has sought anonymity
The title mentioned, "Kulturgeschichtliche Wortforschung: persisches
Lehngut in europäischen Sprachen", is the PhD dissertation, apparently.
University of Bonn, 1990.
Lukas
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Alan wrote:
>
> You DO have trouble reading carefully, don't you? I didn't say that your
> notion that Western Europeans were possessive was misguided. I said that
> your notion that they were **more possessive** than others was misguided.
> Here, let me put it out in front of you again (perhaps this time you'll read
> it):
>
> "As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
> others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble savage"
> notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny"
>
> P.S. I'm a little puzzled by your quoting the first 2 lines of al-Masad
> (Qur'an, chapter 111) (and incidentally ascribing the words to Muhammad) as
> an "accusation".
> Abu Lahab is being cursed.
> He is not being accused of anything.
> (Neither he (nor his wife) is "accused" of anything in the remaining 3
> lines)
> I suggest that you not only read more carefully, but also that you speak
> more carefully, especially if you're going to have the audacity to quote
> the Qur'an to back up your fanciful notions.
Alan, you seem to be as bad-tempered as Abu Lahab used to be but I
still wouldn't curse you. Boy, Abu Lahab is not only cursed but
threatened and both imply accusation. However, this is not my focus as
you ought to know. My focus was: ma: aghna: 3anhu ma:luhu wa ma: kasab.
the question of "have" and "amassing wealth". BTW I pity Abu Lahab's
wife who helps God with his roasting. I will challenge you to any Quran
sura or Aya if you like but not the way Ayatollah's do and not as
fanatic as some practising Christians.
Richard Herring
<realemail...@rudhar.com.invalid> writes
>Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:33:29 GMT: "Alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>: in
>sci.lang:
>
>>To say that Dr J is lying is to assume that he is aware of the truth. He's
>>not. He takes what few facts he actually some grasp of and rushes headlong
>>into the fabrication of others in order to back up his wild and irrational
>>speculations. Technically, not a liar --- just a garden variety fool.
>
>Only those who know everything are allowed to write in this group?
Those who don't know everything would certainly do well not to write
what they don't actually know, and better still not to lecture on it.
>What's the use of discussing things if everybody already knows
>everything?
YMMV, but I find that making flat-out false statements, without even a
hint of their speculative nature, doesn't usually lead to constructive
discussion. What's the point? It's no help to those who don't know the
subject, and annoys those who do.
--
Richard Herring
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
I wonder whether you are the right person to make judgements here. In
addition nobody obliged you to make statements but you are well advised
to stick to your dirty Daniels and mind your own business.
Yusuf B Gursey
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > Dr J, you're confusing the CONCEPT of ownership and being with the
> > EXPRESSION of ownership and being. If, as you apparently think, the
> > "old-time Arabs " were unconcerned about possession, how do you explain such
> > "old-time" words such as saraq ("to steal")(and please don't come up with
> > that crap that "it sounds like an early loan word", as you did (with no
> > evidence at all) with the word haraq) --- if ownership was not conceived of,
> > then how could theft be conceived of?
> > As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
> > others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble savage"
> > notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
> >
> > And, by the way, you just don't recognize sarcasm, do you?
>
> I wouldn't claim that "saraqa" is an early loan. In addition why should
> the existence of such a word interfere with the concept of ownership. I
> mean no society is completely free from vile. Don't you think in
> natural societies such as that of the old time Arabs, ownership didn't
> play an important role in life. Perhaps the feminine gender and the
> singularity of the adj. for the plural apart from human beings is an
inanimate plurals took either adjectives in the broken plural or the
fem.
sound plural in OLDER classical arabic (C. Holes "Modern Arabic ... p.
203)
and this is preserved in some modern bedouin dialects. so this would
at least mitigate strongly against this, as it developed at a period,
when and
among populations which, property relations became more complex. i.e.
the
fem. sing. agreement comes at a later period, and not at the time of
"tribal
communism".
at any rate speculation along these lines doesn't interest me anyway.
Herman Rubin
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:4377C0...@worldnet.att.net...
>> > Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim wrote:
>> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> .
>> >> > For gods' sakes, you are such an ignoramus.
>> >> > Learn something about language and languages before you post here
>> >> > again.
>> >> This an example of spamming I mean the American product of poor quality
>> >> kept in tins.
>> > You don't even know what "spam" means.
>> > Your assertion that most languages have words equivalent to "be" and
>> > "have" is a flat-out lie, and we're sick of your lies about language.
>> > Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>> To say that Dr J is lying is to assume that he is aware of the truth. He's
>> not. He takes what few facts he actually some grasp of and rushes headlong
>> into the fabrication of others in order to back up his wild and irrational
>> speculations. Technically, not a liar --- just a garden variety fool.
>Bush is now claiming that he wasn't lying when he based the invasion on
>the presence of WMD. The Dems aren't buying it: _someone_ had the
>correct intelligence, and it was kept from the Senate and the People.
>The SPQA, as it were.
I do not see that someone who was a source of information
to the US government had the correct intelligence. One
has to act on the information one has, and I suspect that
most people believed that Saddam had WMD; if not, why did
he not let the inspectors go anywhere they wanted?
We know NOW that this was the case, but it certainly did
not seem reasonable at the time.
How do you prove that someone does not have a gun in his
house? You do a thorough search of the whole house, and
you still might not find one that is there.
A WMD may not be as small as a gun, but Iraq is a lot larger
than a house, with lots of places to hide things.
>So if we can keep saying Bush lied, then so can we of "Jamshid."
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
In addition, anything is certainly better than Saddam.
People say Americans are interested in oil only and I would say let
them take 50% because half is then still left for the Iraqis and they
are better off. Saddam used 100% for his belligerent purposes.
Nute
"Miguel Carrasquer" <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:ceffn1had6l0rgrc7...@4ax.com...
> On 13 Nov 2005 13:56:55 -0800, "Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim"
> <Jdib...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >>
> >> Surely there are more languages to which there is a verbal
> >> copula than there are that have "have".
> >
> >
> >Such general statements get us nowhere.
>
> Yes they do: this one happens to be true. The overwhelming
> majority of the world's languages do not have a verb "to
> have".
>
Well what do they use to signal possession then?
Cluster User
According to Scott Ritter, the Administration knew that
there were no WMD, and no capability to produce after a
certain point. However, they compromised the inspection
proccess and used it for other purposes.
Here are some links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258
> We know NOW that this was the case, but it certainly did
> not seem reasonable at the time.
>
> How do you prove that someone does not have a gun in his
> house? You do a thorough search of the whole house, and
> you still might not find one that is there.
There was no EVIDENCE of WMD's in Iraq after a certain point, but
the Administration was saying otherwise.
Peter T. Daniels
Dative cases; prepositions like "to."
Modern Hebrew "Yesh li sefer" 'I have a book' = there-is to-me book
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:cw8ef.3867$ur3....@fe24.usenetserver.com> in
sci.lang:
> "Miguel Carrasquer" <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:ceffn1had6l0rgrc7...@4ax.com...
[...]
>> The overwhelming majority of the world's languages do not
>> have a verb "to have".
> Well what do they use to signal possession then?
One possibility is a prepositional phrase, as in Russian 'U
menja jest' kniga'; this translates 'I have a book' but is
literally 'By/at me is a book'.
Another is to put the possessor into the dative case, as in
Kannada:
ida -kke ondu TippaNi ide
this DAT a footnote is
to-this a footnote is
This has a footnote.
Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
<tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
Brian
Alan
wrote "The prophet even accused his uncle Abu Lahab: ..." and then quoted
the first two lines of al-Masad. Outside of the rather unusual assumption
on your part that Muhammad was being directly quoted in the Qur'an, if you
meant to say that Abu Lahab was being cursed and threatened and that (in
your opinion) that implied an accusation, then you should have said so in
the first place. If Abu Lahab as well as his two hands are enjoined to
perish, and that neither his wealth nor his family* will be able to prevent
this (which is the sense of those two lines), then, please tell me : what is
he being accused of?
*This is how ibn Katheer who cites ibn Abbas interprets "wa ma kasaba". Ibn
Katheer further states that ibn Mas3ood heard from Muhammad that Abu Lahab
had boasted that his wealth and his children would assure his status on yawm
al-qiyama, and that this is the basis of Abu Lahab's real fate being
revealed in the Qur'an. No explanation that I'm familiar with (other than
yours, of course) interprets this sura as an accusation. As I said before:
READ carefully, then WRITE carefully. Thank you.
carla
is possessed, including a dative/"to" construction, a construction with
a possessive marker analogous to "'s" in English, and a construction
with a postposition meaning "near" (apologies for the clunky but
rigorous ITrans romanization):
raaj ke paas bahut khilaune hai.n
Raj has many toys ("ke paas" = "near": "near Raj there are many toys")
raam ke do bhaaii hai.n
Ram has two brothers ("ke" = possessive marker: there are two brothers
of Ram)
mujh ko zukaam hai
I have a cold ("ko" = "to": "to me there is a cold")
As a native English speaker, learning Hindi has made me stop and think
about the broad range of tasks for which "to have" is pressed into
service in English and the Romance languages.
carla
Paul J Kriha
Yes, I thought of that when I wrote it.
Everything would be much simpler if that wasn't true.
Imagine the majority of all advertising executives, politicians,
spin doctors out of work.
pjk
Ruud Harmsen
<b.s...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang:
>Another is to put the possessor into the dative case, as in
>Kannada:
>
> ida -kke ondu TippaNi ide
> this DAT a footnote is
> to-this a footnote is
> This has a footnote.
>
>Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
>regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
><tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
Dutch: "het is niet aan mij daarover te oordelen' = it is not up to me
to judge this". Not possession, but similar structure.
Ekkehard Dengler
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1rvb55h1ukd56$.16pc9sjisr2ef.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:49:43 -0600, Nute <nut...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in <news:cw8ef.3867$ur3....@fe24.usenetserver.com> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > "Miguel Carrasquer" <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > news:ceffn1had6l0rgrc7...@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>
> >> The overwhelming majority of the world's languages do not
> >> have a verb "to have".
>
> > Well what do they use to signal possession then?
>
> One possibility is a prepositional phrase, as in Russian 'U
> menja jest' kniga'; this translates 'I have a book' but is
> literally 'By/at me is a book'.
Irish: 'Tá leabhar agam.' ('Is book at-me.')
> Another is to put the possessor into the dative case, as in
> Kannada:
>
> ida -kke ondu TippaNi ide
> this DAT a footnote is
> to-this a footnote is
> This has a footnote.
I think (or hope) this translates into Latvian as:
'Tam ir zemteksta pieziime.' ('This [dat.] is footnote.')
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
"Ekkehard Dengler" schrieb:
> 'Tam ir zemteksta pieziime.' ('This [dat.] is footnote.')
Come to think of it, 'tam' should probably be 'shim' ('that' vs. 'this').
Can anyone confirm this?Anyway, what I do know is that 'I have a book' is
'Man ir graamata' (lit. 'Me [dat.] is book').
Ekkehard
Richard Herring
Jamshid Ibrahim <Jdib...@aol.com> writes
>
>Richard Herring wrote:
>> In message <o3ogn199f32o11h95...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>> <realemail...@rudhar.com.invalid> writes
>> >Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:33:29 GMT: "Alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com>: in
>> >sci.lang:
>> >
>> >>To say that Dr J is lying is to assume that he is aware of the truth. He's
>> >>not. He takes what few facts he actually some grasp of and rushes
>> >>headlong
>> >>into the fabrication of others in order to back up his wild and irrational
>> >>speculations. Technically, not a liar --- just a garden variety fool.
>> >
>> >Only those who know everything are allowed to write in this group?
>>
>> Those who don't know everything would certainly do well not to write
>> what they don't actually know, and better still not to lecture on it.
>>
>> >What's the use of discussing things if everybody already knows
>> >everything?
>>
>> YMMV, but I find that making flat-out false statements, without even a
>> hint of their speculative nature, doesn't usually lead to constructive
>> discussion. What's the point? It's no help to those who don't know the
>> subject, and annoys those who do.
>
>I wonder whether you are the right person to make judgements here.
Go ahead and wonder, since I'm not making any. I'm offering opinions.
> In
>addition nobody obliged you to make statements
I oblige *myself* not to make statements I don't have reasonable grounds
for believing to be true. It makes one look stupid when others point out
the errors, like this:
>The two verbs ["be" and "have"] mentioned are central in nearly
>all languages.
This is not true. Many languages don't even _have_ verbs corresponding
to "be" and "have", let alone "central" ones. For example, Thai has no
single word that means "be": it uses several different verbs to express
existence, identity, being alive and location, and none of them is used
as a general copula, since adjectives function as stative verbs.
>but you are well advised
>to stick to your dirty Daniels and mind your own business.
>
Postings in a public forum automatically become the business of their
audience.
--
Richard Herring
Neeraj Mathur
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:1rvb55h1ukd56$.16pc9sjisr2ef.dlg@40tude.net...
> Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
> regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
> <tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
In fact both Latin and Greek have verbs meaning 'to have' - Latin habeo
(which is 100% regular, to the shock of many a Romance speaker) and Greek
ekhw (which is regularly derivable from a root *sekh-). They also both have
genitive cases, more or less equivalent to English possessives or the 'of'
construction. Nevertheless, both prefer to indicate simple possession with
the dative and the verb 'be'.
Neeraj Mathur
Neeraj Mathur
"Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dlcg55$ruu$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Greek ekhw
Ugh, sorry - I meant to write 'ekho:'.
Neeraj Mathur
Ruud Harmsen
> >all languages.
Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:44:55 +0000: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>:
in sci.lang:
>This is not true.
Ah, now we're talking. Finally back to the real issue, instead of all
the needless insults in this thread.
If somebody (no matter who, no matter his qualifications) says
something that isn't true or accurrate, somebody else who is aware of
that can simply say so. It's called discussion. Not many people,
especially in this group, are familiar with the concept.
Peter T. Daniels
Maybe this one is used for inalienable possession?
> mujh ko zukaam hai
> I have a cold ("ko" = "to": "to me there is a cold")
Are _ke_ and _ko_ historically or even synchronically the same morpheme?
> As a native English speaker, learning Hindi has made me stop and think
> about the broad range of tasks for which "to have" is pressed into
> service in English and the Romance languages.
Harlan Messinger
> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>>Surely there are more languages to which there is a verbal
>>copula than there are that have "have".
>
> Such general statements get us nowhere.
Then why was your opening statement of the thread the blatant general
statement, "The two verbs mentioned are central in nearly all languages"?
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
In general, though, grammatical details of a language do not correlate
with the attitudes of the speakers of the langauge. So in this case,
the way the Arabic language represents possession says nothing about
what Arabic speakers think or thought of possession.
A few other facts are, I think, interesting:
1. Russian has no verb "to have," and the verb "to be" is not used in
the present tense. But Russian *does* use the verb "to be" as an
auxiliary for the future. Interestingly, Russian uses the
null-form of "to be" for the past, so, e.g., "I knew" is Russian
is "Ja Znal," literally, "I am went," but we don't hear the verb
"am." This is why Russian past-tense verbs decline like
adjectives.
2. Hebrew, too, doesn't generally use the present-tense verb "to be,"
and there is no Hebrew verb "to have." But (Israeli) Hebrew
present-tense verbs decline like adjectives, suggesting that the
present-tense Hebrew "I know" is literally "I am knowing," with
null "am."
3. Hebrew developed a use of the past-tense verb "to be" that's used
for a compound tense.
4. Even though Modern Hebrew retains the expression "X was to Y"
instead of "Y has X," speakers sometimes use accusitive Case for
the subject "X."
5. You are entirely correct that "be" and "have" are closely
related. We see this clearly in English, where the suffix for
"was" and "is" sounds the same as the suffix for "has": "Bill's"
can be "Bill is," "Bill was," or "belonging to Bill."
6. Your observation that a pronoun can be used for "is" in Arabic
meshes with the same phenomenon in Hebrew and a similar
observation about many Romance languages. In Spanish, e.g., the
verb "to be" is the pronoun "se," as we see in "Ser," "to be."
-Joel M. Hoffman
http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>6. Your observation that a pronoun can be used for "is" in Arabic
> meshes with the same phenomenon in Hebrew and a similar
> observation about many Romance languages. In Spanish, e.g., the
> verb "to be" is the pronoun "se," as we see in "Ser," "to be."
????
An example to make clear what in the world you mean, perhaps?
Harlan Messinger
> 5. You are entirely correct that "be" and "have" are closely
> related. We see this clearly in English, where the suffix for
> "was" and "is" sounds the same as the suffix for "has": "Bill's"
> can be "Bill is," "Bill was,"
"has", not "was"
> or "belonging to Bill."
Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>> meshes with the same phenomenon in Hebrew and a similar
>> observation about many Romance languages. In Spanish, e.g., the
>> verb "to be" is the pronoun "se," as we see in "Ser," "to be."
>
>????
>An example to make clear what in the world you mean, perhaps?
I'm not sure what you want you want an example of:
1. (Israeli) Hebrew: ha-bos hu ha-bos, literally "the-boss he
the-boss," means, "The boss is the boss." The pronoun HU ("he")
is used for "is."
2. Romance lgs.: Spanish infinitives end in "R." "SE" is a Spanish
pronoun very roughly meaning "self." One of the verbs "to be" in
Spanish is just the infinitive marker added to this common
pronoun: SER.
Harlan Messinger
We know what "se" and "ser" are in Spanish. What Ruud wanted to know is
whether you could give an example to show what you mean when you claim
that the pronoun "se" is being used as a verb or that it has anything
whatsoever to do with "ser".
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>> 5. You are entirely correct that "be" and "have" are closely
>> related. We see this clearly in English, where the suffix for
>> "was" and "is" sounds the same as the suffix for "has": "Bill's"
>> can be "Bill is," "Bill was,"
>
>"has", not "was"
Yes, "has." Sorry.
> > or "belonging to Bill."
>
>Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
>/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
>relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
>some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
So you think it's a coincidence? And it's also a coincidence that
"belong to them" and "they are" both reduce to sound exactly the same
(they're/their)? And it's a further coincidence that "you are" and
"belonging to you" reduce to sound the same (you're/your). In other
words:
BILL YOU HE THEY
TO BE Bill's You're He's They're
POSSESSIVE Bill's Your His Their
Disregarding the irrelevant spelling, can't you see that the
possessives refelct the word plus the appropriate form of "to be"?
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>whether you could give an example to show what you mean when you claim
>that the pronoun "se" is being used as a verb or that it has anything
>whatsoever to do with "ser".
SE is not being used as a verb. It's a pronoun in Spanish. What's
relevant is that the pronoun plus the infinitive ending yields the
verb "to be."
Neeraj Mathur
> carla wrote:
>> Hindi uses similar constructions, which vary according to the thing that
>> is possessed, including a dative/"to" construction, a construction with
>> a possessive marker analogous to "'s" in English, and a construction
>> with a postposition meaning "near" (apologies for the clunky but
>> rigorous ITrans romanization):
>>
>> raaj ke paas bahut khilaune hai.n
>> Raj has many toys ("ke paas" = "near": "near Raj there are many toys")
>>
>> raam ke do bhaaii hai.n
>> Ram has two brothers ("ke" = possessive marker: there are two brothers
>> of Ram)
>
> Maybe this one is used for inalienable possession?
As a native speaker, my impression is that these two are the same; in other
words, the 'paas' has just been suppressed. I would see nothing wrong with
saying 'Raj ke bahut khilaune haiN' or 'Ram ke paas do bhaaii haiN'. Of
course, like most native speakers, I have very little understanding of how
Hindi's grammar works, since I've never studied a grammar of the language.
But I think the basic form is 'ke paas', or even 'ke paas meN' (lit. 'in the
vicinity of').
>> mujh ko zukaam hai
>> I have a cold ("ko" = "to": "to me there is a cold")
>
> Are _ke_ and _ko_ historically or even synchronically the same morpheme?
I don't know about historically; I suppose the answers are in Turner's
dictionary. Synchronically, though, they are different: 'ko' is just a
dative postposition, while 'ke' is a form of 'ka', a possessive postposition
which agrees with the object possessed. 'ke' is the masculine plural form
(agreeing with the two brothers).
One of the mistakes you'll hear Indians make is saying something like
'There's Adam; I wonder how is her mother?'.
Again about the ka postposition: it appears that in many Indo-Aryan
languages (at least of the Central Group) there is a similar postposition,
which shows gender-number-case agreement with the object(s) possessed, and
often the endings are even identical (as they are for many adjectives), but
the actual morpheme is different. Thus in Panjabi, you have 'da, de, di'
matching Hindi 'ka, ke, ki'; Rajasthani has 'ra, re, ri', and Gujarati has
something similar. I don't know how to explain this by sound change.
Back to historical: R.S.McGregor, who gives etymologies in his dictionary of
Hindi, says for 'ka' that it is 'connected with krta', by which I assume he
means the past participle of Sanskrit 'kr' = 'do'. As for 'ko', he derives
it from 'kakSam'. This completely confuses me; the only thing I can think he
means by this would be the acc sg of Skt 'kakSa', which means something like
'lurking place' or 'room'; I think it can mean 'side' as well, by I'm still
missing the connection!
Neeraj Mathur
Harlan Messinger
>>whether you could give an example to show what you mean when you claim
>>that the pronoun "se" is being used as a verb or that it has anything
>>whatsoever to do with "ser".
>
>
> SE is not being used as a verb. It's a pronoun in Spanish. What's
> relevant is that the pronoun plus the infinitive ending yields the
> verb "to be."
It isn't relevant to anything. Your analysis is akin to claiming that
"naked" is the past tense of an unattested verb "to nake" or that "beer"
is the comparative form of the a verbal adjective "to be".
Harlan Messinger
>>> related. We see this clearly in English, where the suffix for
>>> "was" and "is" sounds the same as the suffix for "has": "Bill's"
>>> can be "Bill is," "Bill was,"
>>
>>"has", not "was"
>
> Yes, "has." Sorry.
>
>>>or "belonging to Bill."
>>
>>Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
>>/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
>>relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
>>some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
>
> So you think it's a coincidence?
The only relation is that "has" and "is" both end in "s" in exactly the
same way that the third person present of EVERY English verb ends in
"s", and that's why both of them, unstressed auxiliaries that they are,
reduce to that final "s".
Feel free to stop me here if you were making these claims satirically
for the purpose of lampooning Jamshid's original message.
Miguel Carrasquer
Hoffman) wrote:
>Much has been written about be/have.
>
>In general, though, grammatical details of a language do not correlate
>with the attitudes of the speakers of the langauge. So in this case,
>the way the Arabic language represents possession says nothing about
>what Arabic speakers think or thought of possession.
>
>A few other facts are, I think, interesting:
>
>1. Russian has no verb "to have," and the verb "to be" is not used in
> the present tense. But Russian *does* use the verb "to be" as an
> auxiliary for the future.
It also uses it in the past: ja byl(a) "I was".
> Interestingly, Russian uses the
> null-form of "to be" for the past, so, e.g., "I knew" is Russian
> is "Ja Znal," literally, "I am went," but we don't hear the verb
> "am." This is why Russian past-tense verbs decline like
> adjectives.
The present tense auxiliary that was there has been elided
(as it has been the present tense copula).
>5. You are entirely correct that "be" and "have" are closely
> related. We see this clearly in English, where the suffix for
> "was" and "is" sounds the same as the suffix for "has": "Bill's"
> can be "Bill is," "Bill was," or "belonging to Bill."
And yet none of those are "related".
>6. Your observation that a pronoun can be used for "is" in Arabic
> meshes with the same phenomenon in Hebrew and a similar
> observation about many Romance languages. In Spanish, e.g., the
> verb "to be" is the pronoun "se," as we see in "Ser," "to be."
No it isn't. The Spanish infinitive <ser> comes from Latin
<sedere> "to sit", but otherwise the verb continues Latin
<esse> "to be".
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>2. Romance lgs.: Spanish infinitives end in "R." "SE" is a Spanish
> pronoun very roughly meaning "self." One of the verbs "to be" in
> Spanish is just the infinitive marker added to this common
> pronoun: SER.
I don't think these two have anything at all to do with each other.
Just sheer coincidence.
Portuguese 'se' (reflexive, and sometimes also an indefinite personal
pronoun, but less often than in Spanish) comes from Latin 'se', with
the same meaning. I suppose the etymology of the Spanish word is the
same.
Ruud Harmsen
<hmessinger...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang:
>The only relation is that "has" and "is" both end in "s" in exactly the
>same way that the third person present of EVERY English verb ends in
>"s", /
Except modal verbs like can, may, must, will etc.
(The cognate verbs in German and Dutch don't get their usual -t in the
3d ps. sing. either).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >whether you could give an example to show what you mean when you claim
> >that the pronoun "se" is being used as a verb or that it has anything
> >whatsoever to do with "ser".
>
> SE is not being used as a verb. It's a pronoun in Spanish. What's
> relevant is that the pronoun plus the infinitive ending yields the
> verb "to be."
What is your evidence that "ser" is the pronoun "se" plus the
"infinitive ending"?
Peter T. Daniels
At least when Izzy posts stuff like that, the purpose is to amuse.
I think the Maryland-trained syntactician is serious.
(I told you they'd omitted phonology from his education entirely.
(Morphology is included in phonology by those types.))
(I wonder how little Rachel is going to defend him this time.)
Brian M. Scott
<neem...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:dlcg55$ruu$1...@news.ox.ac.uk> in sci.lang:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:1rvb55h1ukd56$.16pc9sjisr2ef.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
>> regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
>> <tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
> In fact both Latin and Greek have verbs meaning 'to have'
Yes; that's why I wrote 'allows'.
[...]
Brian
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Alan wrote:
> "Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim" <Jdib...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131991794.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan wrote:
> >>
> >> You DO have trouble reading carefully, don't you? I didn't say that your
> >> notion that Western Europeans were possessive was misguided. I said that
> >> your notion that they were **more possessive** than others was misguided.
> >> Here, let me put it out in front of you again (perhaps this time you'll
> >> read
> >> it):
> >>
> >> "As for your assumption that Western Europeans are more possessive than
> >> others, I'm afraid you're operating on some sort of misguided "noble
> >> savage"
> >> notion which just does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny"
> >>
> >> P.S. I'm a little puzzled by your quoting the first 2 lines of al-Masad
> >> (Qur'an, chapter 111) (and incidentally ascribing the words to Muhammad)
> >> as
> >> an "accusation".
> >> Abu Lahab is being cursed.
> >> He is not being accused of anything.
> >> (Neither he (nor his wife) is "accused" of anything in the remaining 3
> >> lines)
> >> I suggest that you not only read more carefully, but also that you speak
> >> more carefully, especially if you're going to have the audacity to quote
> >> the Qur'an to back up your fanciful notions.
> >
> > Alan, you seem to be as bad-tempered as Abu Lahab used to be but I
> > still wouldn't curse you. Boy, Abu Lahab is not only cursed but
> > threatened and both imply accusation. However, this is not my focus as
> > you ought to know. My focus was: ma: aghna: 3anhu ma:luhu wa ma: kasab.
> > the question of "have" and "amassing wealth". BTW I pity Abu Lahab's
> > wife who helps God with his roasting. I will challenge you to any Quran
> > sura or Aya if you like but not the way Ayatollah's do and not as
> > fanatic as some practising Christians.
> >
> Well, you just plain DON'T write very carefully, do you? You quite clearly
> wrote "The prophet even accused his uncle Abu Lahab: ..." and then quoted
> the first two lines of al-Masad. Outside of the rather unusual assumption
> on your part that Muhammad was being directly quoted in the Qur'an, if you
> meant to say that Abu Lahab was being cursed and threatened and that (in
> your opinion) that implied an accusation, then you should have said so in
> the first place. If Abu Lahab as well as his two hands are enjoined to
> perish, and that neither his wealth nor his family* will be able to prevent
> this (which is the sense of those two lines), then, please tell me : what is
> he being accused of?
> *This is how ibn Katheer who cites ibn Abbas interprets "wa ma kasaba". Ibn
> Katheer further states that ibn Mas3ood heard from Muhammad that Abu Lahab
> had boasted that his wealth and his children would assure his status on yawm
> al-qiyama, and that this is the basis of Abu Lahab's real fate being
> revealed in the Qur'an. No explanation that I'm familiar with (other than
> yours, of course) interprets this sura as an accusation. As I said before:
> READ carefully, then WRITE carefully. Thank you.
What we propably know about Abu Lahab as his name suggests he was of
firey temper and one of arch enemies of the prophet. The al-Masad Sura
reflects the rivalries as elsewhere shown in Quran (compare: al
Kawthar). The prophet is said to have deplored the loss of Old Arab
virtues. The problem with Isna:d even with Ibn Katheeris: we often
hear legends due to religious commitment. After all we can only
speculate because we will never find out the truth. This is the reason
why I limit myself to Quran and ignore Hadeeth completely.
Miguel Carrasquer
Hoffman) wrote:
[Harlan:]
>>Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
>>/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
>>relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
>>some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
>
>So you think it's a coincidence?
Of course.
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Nute wrote:
>
> Well what do they use to signal possession then?
The concept of possession is different from the way we understand. In
some natural societies you can't possess at all. It is as if sth is
lent to for some time till you die. See Shakespeare's sonnet Shall I
compare thee:
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
You can only keep material goods with you for some time and pass on
when you die. Don't you agree?
Neeraj Mathur
>
> Yes; that's why I wrote 'allows'.
Yeah, I was expanding on you (not contradicting).
Neeraj
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
Well, Joel I completely agree with you. "Be" and "have" are related and
if there are no verbs specifically for them there are substitutes as
with all other linguistic phenomena which show the different ways of
thinking. After all possession can also be seen as something "lent"
only. The verb "have" sometimes makes people forget there is death. In
addition, the importance of the two verbs make their mentioning on the
surface structure unnecessary because they are implied.
Regards
Jamshid
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
You ought to know that third person present in "be" is different from
other verbs.
Peter T. Daniels
> What we propably know about Abu Lahab as his name suggests he was of
> firey temper and one of arch enemies of the prophet. The al-Masad Sura
> reflects the rivalries as elsewhere shown in Quran (compare: al
> Kawthar). The prophet is said to have deplored the loss of Old Arab
> virtues. The problem with Isna:d even with Ibn Katheeris: we often
> hear legends due to religious commitment. After all we can only
> speculate because we will never find out the truth. This is the reason
> why I limit myself to Quran and ignore Hadeeth completely.
Does that make "Jamshid Ibrahim" a Wahhabi wannabe?
Peter T. Daniels
Many languages (apparently none that "Jamshid Ibrahim" knows) have
"inalienable possession" -- or does he deny that "arm" or "brother" can
be detached from ego?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:437A1D...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
Probably about the same as his evidence that English <heed>
is the pronoun <he> plus the past tense suffix <-ed>. (He
and Jamshid are certainly doing a good job of illustrating
the perils of pretentiousness!)
Brian
carla
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4379F1...@worldnet.att.net...
>> carla wrote:
>>> Hindi uses similar constructions, which vary according to the thing that
>>> is possessed, including a dative/"to" construction, a construction with
>>> a possessive marker analogous to "'s" in English, and a construction
>>> with a postposition meaning "near" (apologies for the clunky but
>>> rigorous ITrans romanization):
>>>
>>> raaj ke paas bahut khilaune hai.n
>>> Raj has many toys ("ke paas" = "near": "near Raj there are many toys")
>>>
>>> raam ke do bhaaii hai.n
>>> Ram has two brothers ("ke" = possessive marker: there are two brothers
>>> of Ram)
>> Maybe this one is used for inalienable possession?
>
> As a native speaker, my impression is that these two are the same; in other
> words, the 'paas' has just been suppressed. I would see nothing wrong with
> saying 'Raj ke bahut khilaune haiN' or 'Ram ke paas do bhaaii haiN'. Of
> course, like most native speakers, I have very little understanding of how
> Hindi's grammar works, since I've never studied a grammar of the language.
> But I think the basic form is 'ke paas', or even 'ke paas meN' (lit. 'in the
> vicinity of').
>
questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from - that
grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas" for
real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised otherwise.
Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real
estate but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
>>> mujh ko zukaam hai
>>> I have a cold ("ko" = "to": "to me there is a cold")
>> Are _ke_ and _ko_ historically or even synchronically the same morpheme?
>
> I don't know about historically; I suppose the answers are in Turner's
> dictionary. Synchronically, though, they are different: 'ko' is just a
> dative postposition, while 'ke' is a form of 'ka', a possessive postposition
> which agrees with the object possessed. 'ke' is the masculine plural form
> (agreeing with the two brothers).
>
> One of the mistakes you'll hear Indians make is saying something like
> 'There's Adam; I wonder how is her mother?'.
>
This is great; I always enjoy the fact that learning a language helps me
understand the errors that native speakers of make in English. The fact
that "kaa/kii/ke" agree with the thing possessed is as difficult for me
to remember as the fact that "his/her" agree with the possessor must be
for native speakers of Hindi.
(But, Neeraj, at the moment I am struggling with subtler aspects of
Hindi that make "kaa" agreement trivial by comparison, such as milanaa,
laganaa, and the like!)
[snip interesting stuff about the etymology of "ko" and "kaa/kii/ke"]
Alan
completely. If you're going to limit yourself to Qur'an and ignore hadeeth,
then you REALLY need to READ CAREFULLY. You're obviously not doing so, so
I'll not take the take to discuss this any further with you. Thanks.
Neeraj Mathur
"carla" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yLWdne5t_IXw4-fe...@comcast.com...
> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>> As a native speaker, my impression is that these two are the same; in
>> other words, the 'paas' has just been suppressed. I would see nothing
>> wrong with saying 'Raj ke bahut khilaune haiN' or 'Ram ke paas do bhaaii
>> haiN'. Of course, like most native speakers, I have very little
>> understanding of how Hindi's grammar works, since I've never studied a
>> grammar of the language. But I think the basic form is 'ke paas', or even
>> 'ke paas meN' (lit. 'in the vicinity of').
>>
> I recently had a similar discussion with another native speaker who
> questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from - that
> grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
> servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
> mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas" for
> real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised otherwise.
> Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real estate
> but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
Thinking more about this, I think I might be more inclined to omit 'paas' if
I'm going to say something more about the topic, with a relative pronoun or
something: 'Raj ke bahut khilauneN haiN jo bas jaghe gher raheN haiN' - 'Raj
has lots of toys that are just taking up space'. The same is probably true
of non-movables: 'mere teen ghar haiN jo maiN becnaa chaahtaa huuN' - 'I
have three houses I want to sell'.
> This is great; I always enjoy the fact that learning a language helps me
> understand the errors that native speakers of make in English. The fact
> that "kaa/kii/ke" agree with the thing possessed is as difficult for me to
> remember as the fact that "his/her" agree with the possessor must be for
> native speakers of Hindi.
It may be interference from my English, but I do the same thing from time to
time in Hindi, and I have to deliberately remind myself not to do it in
languages like French with possessive adjectives (son / sa etc.).
> (But, Neeraj, at the moment I am struggling with subtler aspects of Hindi
> that make "kaa" agreement trivial by comparison, such as milanaa, laganaa,
> and the like!)
Do you mean the causatives? What is the problem, exactly? There are a few
Hindi speakers on this group; feel free to post your questions (or email me
if you prefer).
Neeraj Mathur
Yusuf B Gursey
that it doesn't. AFAIK Wahhabis support Hadith based Qur'an
intepretation, but
not based individual (relatively) rational thought or later mystical
accretions.
what makes them so rigid and conservative is their relative uncritical
acceptance
of early Hadith and their rejections of later pragmatic fatwas or
intepretations that
mitigate these. much of the restrictive stuff is found in the Hadith
collections.
the "Qur'an only" people are a varied lot. some are curent "New Age"
reformist
types, some are more traditional mystics. Libya subscribes to "Qur'an
only"because Hadith was used as an argument against the regime's
intepretation of its socialism, the Kharijis (neither Sunni nor Shia,
it's official in Oman) because they didn't have enough followers to
establish a chain of transmitters of their own to rely upon etc.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "carla" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:yLWdne5t_IXw4-fe...@comcast.com...
> > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >> As a native speaker, my impression is that these two are the same; in
> >> other words, the 'paas' has just been suppressed. I would see nothing
> >> wrong with saying 'Raj ke bahut khilaune haiN' or 'Ram ke paas do bhaaii
> >> haiN'. Of course, like most native speakers, I have very little
> >> understanding of how Hindi's grammar works, since I've never studied a
> >> grammar of the language. But I think the basic form is 'ke paas', or even
> >> 'ke paas meN' (lit. 'in the vicinity of').
> >>
> > I recently had a similar discussion with another native speaker who
> > questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from - that
> > grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
> > servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
> > mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas" for
> > real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised otherwise.
> > Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real estate
> > but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
This suggests that the category of inalienable possession is being lost
...
> Thinking more about this, I think I might be more inclined to omit 'paas' if
> I'm going to say something more about the topic, with a relative pronoun or
> something: 'Raj ke bahut khilauneN haiN jo bas jaghe gher raheN haiN' - 'Raj
> has lots of toys that are just taking up space'. The same is probably true
> of non-movables: 'mere teen ghar haiN jo maiN becnaa chaahtaa huuN' - 'I
> have three houses I want to sell'.
... and this that its marker is taking on a different sense.
> > This is great; I always enjoy the fact that learning a language helps me
> > understand the errors that native speakers of make in English. The fact
> > that "kaa/kii/ke" agree with the thing possessed is as difficult for me to
> > remember as the fact that "his/her" agree with the possessor must be for
> > native speakers of Hindi.
>
> It may be interference from my English, but I do the same thing from time to
> time in Hindi, and I have to deliberately remind myself not to do it in
> languages like French with possessive adjectives (son / sa etc.).
Not sure what you're saying -- Hindi is like French: son mari 'her
husband', sa marie 'his wife'. It doesn't come naturally to me.
> > (But, Neeraj, at the moment I am struggling with subtler aspects of Hindi
> > that make "kaa" agreement trivial by comparison, such as milanaa, laganaa,
> > and the like!)
>
> Do you mean the causatives? What is the problem, exactly? There are a few
> Hindi speakers on this group; feel free to post your questions (or email me
> if you prefer).
Neeraj Mathur
> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>>
>> "carla" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:yLWdne5t_IXw4-fe...@comcast.com...
>> > questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from -
>> > that
>> > grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
>> > servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
>> > mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas"
>> > for
>> > real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised
>> > otherwise.
>> > Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real
>> > estate
>> > but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
>
> This suggests that the category of inalienable possession is being lost
I'm not sure that we've demonstrated yet that such a category ever existed.
All of the native speakers whose data we have (mine, and the two reported by
Carla) seem to use 'ke paas' in all situations, allowing the omission of
'paas' secondarily. We don't know the situational distribution of this
allowance; Carla's speakers have said that it can be omitted with
inalienable possession, but (as I read her post) have no comment or were not
asked about omitting it with temporary possession. I've suggested that
omission is possible in either case, in a different situation. All of the
native speakers seem uncomfortable with the idea that the language
differentiates between alienable and inalienable possession.
>> It may be interference from my English, but I do the same thing from time
>> to
>> time in Hindi, and I have to deliberately remind myself not to do it in
>> languages like French with possessive adjectives (son / sa etc.).
>
> Not sure what you're saying -- Hindi is like French: son mari 'her
> husband', sa marie 'his wife'. It doesn't come naturally to me.
This came out poorly. I mean to say that I make the typical Anglophone
mistake occasionally in Hindi, and (mentally at least) all the time in
French; with the latter, I remind myself consciously of what to do, but in
Hindi, with no such conscious reminders, the mistakes occur every now and
then.
Neeraj Mathur
Paul J Kriha
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3tug3iF...@individual.net...
And the beest of all is to nake around on the beach in the slowly evening sun.
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Nute <nut...@yahoo.com> wrote in sci.lang:
>
> >> The overwhelming majority of the world's languages do not
> >> have a verb "to have".
>
> > Well what do they use to signal possession then?
>
> menja jest' kniga'; this translates 'I have a book' but is
> literally 'By/at me is a book'.
Same in Hindi - [me:re: pAs pustak/kitAb hE:] - me near book is,
literally meaning "A/The book is near me".
> Another is to put the possessor into the dative case, as in
> Kannada:
How do you know Kannada well enough to give this example?
> ida -kke ondu TippaNi ide
> this DAT a footnote is
> to-this a footnote is
"For this, there exists a footnote" would be the most literal*
translation.
> This has a footnote.
* <oND..> literally means "exists"; it is <ir..> that literally means
"is". While interchangable in a number of contexts, the distinction
between them is especially clear in equivalents of English sentences
with both "be" and "have", as illustrated by the following Malayalam
example in Kyoto-Harvard romanization:
"For there to have been a possibility" would be sAdyata oNDAyirikAn
sAdyata = possibility
oND = have
Ayirik = been
An = for
In "for there to have been a possibility", "have" expresses "exist.."
(i.e., "for the possibility to have existed", not "for the possibility
to have been possessed").
> Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
> regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
> <tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
Can 'sunt tibi magna regna' be used to translate both 1 & 2 below?
1) I (your father) possess great kingdoms and have much wealth.
2) To you (my son), the great kingdoms.
3) To your sister, the wealth.
Paul J Kriha
Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:122kn1d45u838lfcb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:17:30 GMT, jo...@exc.com (Dr. Joel M.
> Hoffman) wrote:
>
> >Much has been written about be/have.
> >
> >In general, though, grammatical details of a language do not correlate
> >with the attitudes of the speakers of the langauge. So in this case,
> >the way the Arabic language represents possession says nothing about
> >what Arabic speakers think or thought of possession.
> >
> >A few other facts are, I think, interesting:
> >
> >1. Russian has no verb "to have," and the verb "to be" is not used in
> > the present tense. But Russian *does* use the verb "to be" as an
> > auxiliary for the future.
It's hardly ever used in the contemporary Russian, but it exists.
There is also Russian present tense "is", it's "est'".
> It also uses it in the past: ja byl(a) "I was".
> > Interestingly, Russian uses the
> > null-form of "to be" for the past, so, e.g., "I knew" is Russian
> > is "Ja Znal," literally, "I am went," but we don't hear the verb
> > "am."
What's literally "I am went" again??
John Atkinson
"Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote...
>> Latin allows has the same construction: 'sunt tibi magna
>> regna', literally '(there) are to you great kingdoms', where
>> <tibi> is the dative case of the personal pronoun.
>
> In fact both Latin and Greek have verbs meaning 'to have' - Latin habeo
> (which is 100% regular, to the shock of many a Romance speaker) and Greek
> ekhw (which is regularly derivable from a root *sekh-). They also both
> have genitive cases, more or less equivalent to English possessives or the
> 'of' construction. Nevertheless, both prefer to indicate simple possession
> with the dative and the verb 'be'.
Same is true of Russian, I think -- "imet' " is the verb "to have, possess",
but it's not normally used for simple possession. As someone has already
mentioned, Russian uses the preposition "u" with the genitive rather than
the bare dative though.
I guess the fact that the "have" verb comes from a different source in just
about every IE branch that has it suggests that no such verb existed in PIE,
which no doubt also used "be" and an oblique case.
John.
John Atkinson
"Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>>>
>>> "carla" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>>> > I recently had a similar discussion with another native speaker who
>>> > questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from -
>>> > that
>>> > grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
>>> > servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
>>> > mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas"
>>> > for
>>> > real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised
>>> > otherwise.
>>> > Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real
>>> > estate
>>> > but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
>>
>> This suggests that the category of inalienable possession is being lost
>
> I'm not sure that we've demonstrated yet that such a category ever
> existed. All of the native speakers whose data we have (mine, and the two
> reported by Carla) seem to use 'ke paas' in all situations, allowing the
> omission of 'paas' secondarily. We don't know the situational distribution
> of this allowance; Carla's speakers have said that it can be omitted with
> inalienable possession, but (as I read her post) have no comment or were
> not asked about omitting it with temporary possession. I've suggested that
> omission is possible in either case, in a different situation. All of the
> native speakers seem uncomfortable with the idea that the language
> differentiates between alienable and inalienable possession.
Do any Indo-Iranian or Dravidian languages actually have inalienable
possession? I understand Burushaski does, but I've nevr heard of it in
connection with any other South Asian languages.
John.
John Atkinson
"Miguel Carrasquer" <m...@wxs.nl> wrote ...
> jo...@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
>
> [Harlan:]
>>>Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
>>>/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
>>>relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
>>>some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
>>
>>So you think it's a coincidence?
>
> Of course.
Though in this particular case, the coincidence has led to reanalysis, so
that in some dialects "could of" is grammatically correct. It seems to me
that this is the case in my own dialect, though of course I know
intuitively, because I'm literate, that "of" is spelled <have> in such
constructions.
John.
Miguel Carrasquer
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>"Miguel Carrasquer" <m...@wxs.nl> wrote ...
>
>> jo...@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
>>
>> [Harlan:]
>>>>Oh, puh-LEEZ. The fact that three constructs, when weak, all reduce to
>>>>/s/ demonstrates not at all, clearly or otherwise, that there is any
>>>>relationship among them. What's next? "Have" is related to "of" because
>>>>some people misspell "could've" as "could of"?
>>>
>>>So you think it's a coincidence?
>>
>> Of course.
>
>Though in this particular case, the coincidence has led to reanalysis, so
>that in some dialects "could of" is grammatically correct. It seems to me
>that this is the case in my own dialect
In that case, what exactly is the grammar behind "could of"
(or "should of")? There are of course constructions //VP of
NP// (I know of this; he thinks of that) and //NP of NP// (a
glass of water; a piece of shit), but I can't think of any
examples of //VP of VP// which may have acted as analogical
models.
Lukas Pietsch
I've heard this claimed, by competent native English-speaking linguists,
several times, and have always wondered. I've never been able to
understand what could possibly be meant by such a statement. In what
sense could [@v] in [wUd @v gVn] ("would of gone") possibly be an
instance of the lexeme "of", the preposition? Is there any
distributional evidence, besides writers' intuitions, that [@v] is
anything different from a weak form of "have"?
I mean, this [@v] is still the complement of a modal verb, and modal
verbs everywhere else take only bare-infinitive complements. It itself
takes a past-participle verb as a complement, and that's typically what
auxiliary "have" does elsewhere. It has the semantics of perfect "have".
It has, in my experience at least, no corresponding strong form [Qv] or
[Av].
So, it walks like a form of "have", it quacks like a form of "have"...?
If there were any examples anywhere else in English grammar that (1) a
preposition could follow a modal; (2) a preposition could govern a VP;
and/or (3) anything else but "have" could mark perfect aspect/tense, or
(4) I heard people actually exlaim, "he didn't, but he should of!" with
a stressed, non-schwa final "of", then okay, I might accept the
reanalysis story. But up to now, I've never seen any evidence of that kind.
My only take on the issue has so far been that "would of" is just an
orthographic effect, because [@v] is the only common weak form of "have"
that otherwise hasn't got a conventionalised orthographic
representation, such as "'s", "'ve", "'d", "'m", and so on.
Lukas
Ekkehard Dengler
Lukas Pietsch schrieb:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Though in this particular case, the coincidence has led to reanalysis,
so
> > that in some dialects "could of" is grammatically correct. It seems to
me
> > that this is the case in my own dialect, though of course I know
> > intuitively, because I'm literate, that "of" is spelled <have> in such
> > constructions.
> >
>
> I've heard this claimed, by competent native English-speaking linguists,
> several times, and have always wondered. I've never been able to
> understand what could possibly be meant by such a statement. In what
> sense could [@v] in [wUd @v gVn] ("would of gone") possibly be an
> instance of the lexeme "of", the preposition?
I agree with your analysis, but have a question: In which variety of English
does "gone" have [V] (or /V/)?
> My only take on the issue has so far been that "would of" is just an
> orthographic effect, because [@v] is the only common weak form of "have"
> that otherwise hasn't got a conventionalised orthographic
> representation, such as "'s", "'ve", "'d", "'m", and so on.
How do you mean? What about "should've"?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Lukas Pietsch
> Lukas Pietsch schrieb:
>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>>Though in this particular case, the coincidence has led to reanalysis,
>>>so that in some dialects "could of" is grammatically correct. It seems to
>>>me that this is the case in my own dialect, though of course I know
>>>intuitively, because I'm literate, that "of" is spelled <have> in such
>>>constructions.
>>>
>>I've heard this claimed, by competent native English-speaking linguists,
>>several times, and have always wondered. I've never been able to
>>understand what could possibly be meant by such a statement. In what
>>sense could [@v] in [wUd @v gVn] ("would of gone") possibly be an
>>instance of the lexeme "of", the preposition?
>
> I agree with your analysis, but have a question: In which variety of English
> does "gone" have [V] (or /V/)?
Sorry, my fault. Should be [Q] or [A], of course.
>>My only take on the issue has so far been that "would of" is just an
>>orthographic effect, because [@v] is the only common weak form of "have"
>>that otherwise hasn't got a conventionalised orthographic
>>representation, such as "'s", "'ve", "'d", "'m", and so on.
>
> How do you mean? What about "should've"?
>
Well, arguably, "'ve" is not an ideal orthographical representation of
[@v], because it doesn't cater for the initial vowel. All the
conventionalised orthographic representations of weakened auxiliaries
seem to start with a consonant, and the modal+have sequence is the only
one where a vowel segment at the beginning of the weakened auxiliary is
phonologically necessary. My guess is that this is the reason why native
English writers turn to "of" as the best match between the phonological
makeup of the form and its orthographical representation.
Lukas
andrew...@hotmail.com
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> Lukas Pietsch schrieb:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > > Though in this particular case, the coincidence has led to reanalysis,
> so
> > > that in some dialects "could of" is grammatically correct. It seems to
> me
> > > that this is the case in my own dialect, though of course I know
> > > intuitively, because I'm literate, that "of" is spelled <have> in such
> > > constructions.
> > >
> >
> > I've heard this claimed, by competent native English-speaking linguists,
> > several times, and have always wondered. I've never been able to
> > understand what could possibly be meant by such a statement. In what
> > sense could [@v] in [wUd @v gVn] ("would of gone") possibly be an
> > instance of the lexeme "of", the preposition?
>
It's relatively common for some British English speakers, when they
restore a full vowel to the syllable (e.g. for emphasis), to select the
'of' vowel rather than the 'have' vowel.
Ekkehard Dengler
Lukas Pietsch schrieb:
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> > Lukas Pietsch schrieb:
> >>My only take on the issue has so far been that "would of" is just an
> >>orthographic effect, because [@v] is the only common weak form of "have"
> >>that otherwise hasn't got a conventionalised orthographic
> >>representation, such as "'s", "'ve", "'d", "'m", and so on.
> >
> > How do you mean? What about "should've"?
> >
>
> Well, arguably, "'ve" is not an ideal orthographical representation of
> [@v], because it doesn't cater for the initial vowel.
But wouldn't you agree that it's conventionalised?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Lukas Pietsch
Yes, sure, but the primary function of <'ve> seems to be to serve in
environments where the preceding word ends in a vowel, and the auxiliary
is really just [v]: "I've", "we've", "you've", "they've". The
phonological shape in the case of the modal-verb sequences is different,
so the use of <'ve> here might be felt to be a less good fit.
Lukas
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:437ABE...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >>
> >> "carla" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:yLWdne5t_IXw4-fe...@comcast.com...
> >> > I recently had a similar discussion with another native speaker who
> >> > questioned this very distinction in a grammar I was studying from -
> >> > that
> >> > grammar advised "ke paas" for movable possessions (toys, books,
> >> > servants(!)), but "kii/kaa/ke" for real estate (and relatives, as
> >> > mentioned above). He (the native speaker) would have used "ke paas"
> >> > for
> >> > real estate as well and was surprised that my grammar advised
> >> > otherwise.
> >> > Another native speaker agreed that he would use "ke paas" for real
> >> > estate
> >> > but allowed that "kii/kaa/ke" would not have sounded wrong.
> >
> > This suggests that the category of inalienable possession is being lost
>
> I'm not sure that we've demonstrated yet that such a category ever existed.
It looks like that's what Carla's grammar-book was saying.
> All of the native speakers whose data we have (mine, and the two reported by
> Carla) seem to use 'ke paas' in all situations, allowing the omission of
> 'paas' secondarily. We don't know the situational distribution of this
> allowance; Carla's speakers have said that it can be omitted with
> inalienable possession, but (as I read her post) have no comment or were not
> asked about omitting it with temporary possession. I've suggested that
> omission is possible in either case, in a different situation. All of the
> native speakers seem uncomfortable with the idea that the language
> differentiates between alienable and inalienable possession.
>
> >> It may be interference from my English, but I do the same thing from time
> >> to
> >> time in Hindi, and I have to deliberately remind myself not to do it in
> >> languages like French with possessive adjectives (son / sa etc.).
> >
> > Not sure what you're saying -- Hindi is like French: son mari 'her
> > husband', sa marie 'his wife'. It doesn't come naturally to me.
>
> This came out poorly. I mean to say that I make the typical Anglophone
> mistake occasionally in Hindi, and (mentally at least) all the time in
> French; with the latter, I remind myself consciously of what to do, but in
> Hindi, with no such conscious reminders, the mistakes occur every now and
> then.
Peter T. Daniels
Is the sun ever uneven? Why does it need to even [itself], at whatever
speed?
Peter T. Daniels
But there isn't any vowel-initial alternative spelling for
isn't/couldn't etc.
John Atkinson
"Lukas Pietsch" <lukas....@invalid.uni-hamburg.de> wrote ...
> John Atkinson wrote:
Your point (1) suggests only that this "of" may not be a preposition.
Point (2): "to" governs VPs all the time (though not following modals,
true). Is this "to" a preposition? I don't know, Whatever part of speech
it is, I guess the "of" under consideration is the same.
Point (4): As Andrew Woode has already pointed out, [A.v] this is indeed
the pronunciation used in stressed situations by speakers (like myself) of
varieties in which the reanalysis under consideration has taken place. If
you don't do this, you haven't made the reanalysis. I think this is the
critical consideration.
BTW, there are, I believe, American varieties which which forms like
"gonna", "coulda", etc, are standard, and where the forms they derive from,
"going to", "could have", etc, are not normally used, if at all. Since I
don't speak such a variety, I have no intuition concerning whether these are
separate lexemes. What's your take on these?
> My only take on the issue has so far been that "would of" is just an
> orthographic effect, because [@v] is the only common weak form of "have"
> that otherwise hasn't got a conventionalised orthographic representation,
> such as "'s", "'ve", "'d", "'m", and so on.
I disagree. I don't think orthography has anything to do with it.
John.
>
> Lukas
Richard Herring
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Paul J Kriha wrote:
>>
>> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3tug3iF...@individual.net...
>> > Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>> > >>We know what "se" and "ser" are in Spanish. What Ruud wanted to know is
>> > >>whether you could give an example to show what you mean when you claim
>> > >>that the pronoun "se" is being used as a verb or that it has anything
>> > >>whatsoever to do with "ser".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SE is not being used as a verb. It's a pronoun in Spanish. What's
>> > > relevant is that the pronoun plus the infinitive ending yields the
>> > > verb "to be."
>> >
>> > It isn't relevant to anything. Your analysis is akin to claiming that
>> > "naked" is the past tense of an unattested verb "to nake" or that "beer"
>> > is the comparative form of the a verbal adjective "to be".
>>
>> And the beest of all is to nake around on the beach in the slowly
>>evening sun.
Reminds me of Sarfatti's use of "beable"
>
>Is the sun ever uneven? Why does it need to even [itself], at whatever
>speed?
I don't know why, but surely you've heard of sunspots?
Those are the containers it uses to do the evening.
--
Richard Herring
Harlan Messinger
> You ought to know that third person present in "be" is different from
> other verbs.
>
The word "is" is different from other words that *aren't* "is"? What a
stellar revelation. Thanks for that scintillating insight.
Ekkehard Dengler
Harlan Messinger schrieb:
> Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim wrote:
>
> > You ought to know that third person present in "be" is different from
> > other verbs.
> >
> The word "is" is different from other words that *aren't* "is"?
He must be talking about suppletion, don't you think?
Regards,
Ekkehard
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> "Ekkehard Dengler" schrieb:
>
> > 'Tam ir zemteksta pieziime.' ('This [dat.] is footnote.')
>
> Come to think of it, 'tam' should probably be 'shim' ('that' vs. 'this').
> Can anyone confirm this?Anyway, what I do know is that 'I have a book' is
> 'Man ir graamata' (lit. 'Me [dat.] is book').
Could Latvian have got ir=is from Livonian or some other FinnoUgric
language? (ir=is in Dravidian too)
Harlan Messinger
Maybe, but he didn't bother to indicate why that would be relevant. Or
was he just showing off? Even so, to show off successfully, you have to
make it clear what it is you're showing off *about*.
Peter T. Daniels
But the effect of sunspots is negligible by the naking sunbathers.