Re: Neutral meaning of the particle "O"

mirror wrote:

To describe the "object-ness", I think "affected" is better than "changed"...
But I'd rather stick to general grammatical term, "object".
Or I don't see the reason why you want to avoid it and make new distinction.

Why do we need an additional grammatical function? If we can do
without a direct object, that makes the grammar cleaner.


Well, if -o is not marking an object, going without "object" may be cleaner.
But I read everybody in one person's E-mail signature, something like:
"For every complicated problem, there is always a answer which is
very simple, and wrong.'


I don't understand what you think is IRU utterance.
Give me some example that the verb "iru" is used in such way.


I want these distinctions to describe two extremes: The state (ARU)
and the action (IRU). To the first, "The book is funny." To the
second, "I am laughing."


Oh, I thought you were talking about grammar of Japanese.
If you were talking about English, then I quit. OK.


Hmmmm, 「もう食べた？」「うん、もう食べた。」the object, "what he ate"
is either implicit, (晩御飯、if it's dinner time) or irrelevant,
(like just want to know he's hungry or not, or need to prepare some
food or not). Not saying object (with -o) doesn't make the verb
intransient. In this case, 食べる is vt. although object wasn't said.


Surely there must always be something that changes or is, as you
say, is "affected." This is the evidence we all use to say (to
"utter") something happened. As opposed to saying "Everything is
the same" or "Nothing has changed."

My point again is that the direct object and the notion of
transitivity are superfluous because all activity acts upon some
thing or some process. Intransitive action is a contradiction in
terms. You can't have intransiveness along with a verb (a word
indicating change or newness).

The particle "O" is the particle that stresses the *evidence* that
something has indeed occurred. That is all it does. It says, "Your
Honour, given this entity we petition the court to agree something
has happened."

Well, I don't know any more what particle "O" you're talking, since
you're not discussing about Japanese... 8)

Chao!

muchan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lie and lay: Time to give up?
    ... >}>> I read somewhere that some rules of grammar are dictated by usage. ... During the Middle English period the vast majority ... >} discussions largely are unaware that there ever was a distinction. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: grammar and syntax, terminology
    ... >Someone has posted making a distinction between syntax and ... >grammar, and also between grammar and usage. ... A that defines a language must ... Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: grammar and syntax, terminology
    ... >>Someone has posted making a distinction between syntax and ... >>grammar, and also between grammar and usage. ... >>distinctions could be seriously misleading to an innocent ... > is that "syntax" is but one component of a complete grammar ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: grammar and syntax, terminology
    ... > Someone has posted making a distinction between syntax and ... > grammar, and also between grammar and usage. ... > not syntax is part of grammar*. ... > include senses in which usage is part of grammar. ...
    (alt.usage.english)