Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

On 4 March, Jesse Bangs wrote:

>I'm seeing a lot of what seems like
>syntactic smoke and mirrors propogated, and I have to object.
    An objection, it would appear, is had by Jesse.   ;-)

To me, the above doesn't sound ungrammatical. Not even
awkward, really. It reminds me more of the formalistic formulas
used in parliaments, courtrooms, etc. that reflect a fossil of a
once productive lang pattern which is no longer used outside
of very limited contexts. (was that, in fact, the case with this
usage of "have"?)

Dan Sulani
--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.

Reply