Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

Rachel Jones wrote:
>
> 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.

That pretty much knocks out the claim that it's a "marker of 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.

Also not a characteristic of "ACC case."

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

If you wrote with some maturity, I'd consider you a woman rather than a
girl. The stupidity is manifest in nearly every posting.

> "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?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Loading