Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

Enlighten me. What did you mean? Why did you bring up semantic roles in
connection with "et" and in connection with the object (of a verb) in
Hebrew? And do you really believe that there are no prepositions that
convey semantic information? Poppy***.

You made a mistake. You typed the wrong word. It happens to everyone else.
Perhaps it happens to you, too.

~ Rachel


"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43930264.470E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rachel Jones wrote:
>
> [top-posting corrected yet again. Are you merely stupid, or totally
> incompetent?]
>
>> "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.
>
>> To start, you do not mean "semantic roles." Surely you know that
>> subject,
>> object, etc., are "syntactic roles," not "semantic roles."
>
> If you think I said that "object of a preposition" is a "semantic role,"
> 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
>> show why definite NPs are direct objects while indefinite NPs are
>> subjects.
>
> Once again: What is your native language? If you can't interpret the
> scope of "only" in a simple phrase, then there may be no hope for you at
> all.
>
>> I will be happy to review the relevant data for you if you need someone
>> to
>> do that.
>
> It would be interesting to see what you think relevant data -- would it
> be too much to hope for argumentation as well? -- comprise.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx


.

Loading