Re: Be and Have in Hebrew, and ACC case

Brian M. Scott wrote: 
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:52:44 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:3vjk4dF16327pU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:


Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Peter T. Daniels wrote: 


[...]


So you're claiming that et- is a case inflection?? 


How do you account for the fact that it precedes the
article?



That's no bar. The person and number markings on verbs
in Portuguese can perfectly well be separated from the
root by object pronouns. The prefix of a German verb
can come on either side of the verb and can be
separated from it by object clauses.


A German verb prefix is derivation, not inflection. 


I'm not talking about the derivation stellen ->
ausstellen, I'm talking  about the inflection "x
ausstellen" -> "ich stelle x aus" ("Ich stelle  am
nächsten Dienstag den neuen Konzepte aus.")



It doesn't appear to be at all analogous: the *inflection*
is the <-e> of <stelle>.


How is the resequencing of the parts of the word not part of the inflection?


The Portuguese case is troubling for morphological theory. 

Troubling or not, it happens, therefore there can't be a
principle  "inflected forms can't be interrupted by other
words" that would bar "et" from being an inflectional
morpheme.


It's not clear that Peter was invoking such a general
principle, rather than something specific to Hebrew, say, or
to Semitic languages in general.

When a general principle at any level is contradicted by a specific instance, at least in appearance, it may be that the generalization is valid and the instance is something other than it appears, or it may be that the instance is valid and the generalization is wrong. Either way, simply stating the generalization doesn't dispense with the specific claim.
.