Re: language trainer - kind of thing
From: Jacques Guy (jguy_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: John Atkinson: "Re: person specification (polite/familiar)"
- Previous message: Paul Wolff: "Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?"
- In reply to: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:26:58 +1000
Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:34:15 +1000, Jacques Guy
> <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> >Impossible but you need to say why.
> But I don't know why. At least, I've never given it any
> thought.
I hadn't even _noticed_ it!
It's impossible in English, in Spanish, in French, in every language
I have tried so far--languages with personal pronouns, that is.
I have tried languages with inclusive vs exclusive 1st pers. and,
as far as I can tell, it does not make sense either way:
kami melihat saya
we (exc.) see me
kita --ditto--
we (inc.)
Perhaps that is one of the very few _true_ universals?
- Next message: John Atkinson: "Re: person specification (polite/familiar)"
- Previous message: Paul Wolff: "Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?"
- In reply to: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: language trainer - kind of thing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|