Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

Helmut Richter wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >> In 2000 in sci.anthropology, you wrote: "et" isn't an article, it's the
> >> accusative marker, used with definite nouns 38DF4DD5.7005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I have never posted to sci.anthropology.
>
> By the message ID given, you can easily check that this article, written
> on 2000-03-27, was crossposted to various groups, among them sci.lang and
> sci.anthropology. At first glance, it does not look like a forged message.

If something I posted to sci.lang also turned up in sci.anthropology, it
wasn't because of anything I did. (It was because of something I didn't
do.)

> And the statement
>
> "et" isn't an article, it's the accusative marker
>
> is not *that* wrong, irrespective of whether you actually did write it or
> not. Whoever wrote it would be in good company with Gesenius who used the
> term "nota accusativi". Only when used by snippy little bitches, the term
> becomes plain wrong; who has a name as a linguist and a true gentleman can
> use it and will be understood.
>
> Anyhow, you have entirely missed what Rachel was writing, to wit that it
> is astonishing that in a sentence as "yesh li et hassefer" the word sefer
> takes an object marker although it would be expected to be the subject of
> the sentence. You entirely concentrated on finding some minor fault in
> order to insult her that the whole gist of her message escaped you.

No, she did not refer to an object marker. She referred to "ACC case," a
morphological category that does not exist in Modern Hebrew and is
barely visible as a fossil in Masoretic Hebrew.

> It is really embarrassing for me to see how a person I did hold in very
> high esteem is disgracing himself by sleazy language and bad
> manners. Among civilised persons, that's just not done.

Then why don't you ask "Dr." Hoffman and Miss Jones to act <sivilized>?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Loading