Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

To start, you do not mean "semantic roles." Surely you know that subject,
object, etc., are "syntactic roles," not "semantic roles."

If you claim that it "only marks direct objects," the burden is on you to
show why definite NPs are direct objects while indefinite NPs are subjects.

I will be happy to review the relevant data for you if you need someone to
do that.

~ Rachel

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43919F11.5973@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Is "et" not a preposition?
>
> It doesn't work like any (other) preposition in Hebrew. It only marks
> definite direct objects; prepositions aren't restricted to specific
> semantic roles or (in)definite objects.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
    ... If you claim that it "only marks direct objects," the burden is on you to ... show why definite NPs are direct objects while indefinite NPs are subjects. ... > It doesn't work like any preposition in Hebrew. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
    ... >> It doesn't work like any preposition in Hebrew. ... then I guess we have to go with both ignorant _and_ stupid. ... > If you claim that it "only marks direct objects," the burden is on you to ... It would be interesting to see what you think relevant data -- would it ...
    (sci.lang)