Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

It is very complicated. You are (mostly) right. In ancient Hebrew "et"
appears only with ACC case, but not with every instance of ACC case, and not
even with every instance of definite ACC case.

But in Israeli Hebrew "et" also appears with nouns that trigger subject
agreement on the verb. It really is an interesting and complex phenomenon.

I think we all agree with you regarding the personal attacks, but I have no
control over who calls me a stupid girl.

~ Rachel

"Ruud Harmsen" <realemailseesite13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hi26p114673tb9hm8qcplrcu5f55m8m078@xxxxxxxxxx
> Daniel Jones:
>>> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Sun, 4 Dec 2005 10:12:11 -0500: "Rachel Jones" <withheld@xxxxxxxxx>:
> in sci.lang:
>>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***.
>
> I sometimes wonder how languages themselves feel about being discussed
> in this manner. If /my/ functioning and personality characteristics
> were discussed like this, I'd feel offended.
>
> Is the Hebrew word 'et' really so complicated that discussing it
> requires this kind of sour bickering?
> I know very little about Hebrew, but wasn't it simply that 'et' in
> Hebrew marks the accusative case, period?
>
> How on earth do people manage to start a row over something that
> simple? And if it is more complicated than this, is this discussion
> style, full of personal attacks, clarifying in any way?
>
> --
> Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
>


.

Loading