Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Helmut Richter <a282244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Dec 2005 22:36:22 GMT
Ruud Harmsen:
> But even if that might be the case (I don't know, knowing virtually
> nothing about Hebrew)
Th situation is fairly simple: the word "et", which syntactically behaves
like a preposition, marks virtually all (direct) objects if and only if
definite, and this is its only function. The term "object marker" is fine
as long it is understood that not all objects are marked this way but only
definite ones. So far so good, and easy to understand.
In the grammar of some languages, e.g. English, lovers of Greek and Latin
grammar have introduced a notion they call case. I have seen "to my
father" called a dative case, and a simple direct object an accusative
case. I personally do not like this terminology because it has little or
nothing to do with cases, with the possible exception of pronouns. In the
same tradition, direct objects in Hebrew have been called "accusative" and
thus the "et" an "accusative marker". So far so confusing.
Now, there is a fine grey line between wisdom and stupidity here: the
terms "nota accusativi" or "accusative marker" (as used by W. Gesenius in
his famous grammar and by P.T. Daniels in a Usenet posting quoted in this
thread) is fine. However, usage of the term "accusative" together with the
word "case" is a blunder that allows the immediate inference to utmost
stupidity. Should such stupidity emerge from a woman's keyboard, only the
word "bitch" is appropriate to characterise such a person.
> you could have the maturity of approching that
> stupidity with a little bit of tact.
Tact is a sign of mental weakness, for those who have already made errors
in their lives.
Helmut Richter
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- References:
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Rachel Jones
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Helmut Richter
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Rachel Jones
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Rachel Jones
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Rachel Jones
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Media = Real Life?
- Next by Date: Re: Neodeconstructive paradigm of discourse in the works Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
- Previous by thread: Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- Next by thread: Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|