Re: THEORY: Auxiliaries

Nik Taylor wrote:

>Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it was written with two words. Also, whether it is written in one word or
>>two doesn't change much of my analysis, since "forever" is quite clearly
>>identical to "for ever" :)) .
>>
>>
>Well, "forever" is treated as a single unit, similar to "always" (which
>itself is derived also from the compound "all ways")
>
Tell that to the singing staff at my (old, yay!) school. We were singing
(the school makes everyone sing) a song which had the word/s 'for(
)ever' in it. We were berated for putting in an /r/ and ordered to
replace it with a glottal start (sic); there is no such word as /rev@/.

As to the what-are-the-English-auxiliary-verbs-doing question, I'd say
whatever they're doing, they're doing it to the subject. Are they
cliticising onto it? They make sound changes happen to the subject when
they do, and umm... feel more joined to the subject (even if the subject
isn't a pronoun; I've heard somewhere (on this list? or maybe
elsewhere?) that English pronouns are changing into French-style
clitics. I doubt I'd know a clitic if it jumped up and bit me).

Tristan.

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?

Replies