Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:31:06 -0000, And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote:

>Nik:
>> And Rosta wrote:
>> > The "have" = "be with" equation seems a neat explanation and might
>> > also serve to explain such things as *"a dog is had by me" (because
>> > = *"a dog is been with by me", which is predictably ill-formed).
>>
>> "A dog is had by me" doesn't sound that bad.
>
>Extraordinary. So how does "all dogs had by me" compare to "all dogs
>owned by me"?
>
>> Of course, there's also the old cliché " A good time was had by all".
>
>Right. But this would be a different, homonymous HAVE: cf. *"everyone
>with a good time" = "everyone who has/had a good time".
>
>--And.
Yes, this certainly seems to be a different "have", as seen by the fact
that you can say "everyone is having a good time" but not "*I am having a
dog". In fact, Czirehlat has two equivalents of English "have":

mina -- "The dog has long ears" Se jeg minatiz me sedri viom.
noja -- "Everyone is having a good time" Nai nojavez me maralu.

Unlike English, Czirelat allows you to say "I am having a cold (the flu, a
fever, etc.)".

English "I have a dog" might be translated as "I own/possess a dog"
(bindariz me jeg), or more idiomatically as "With me lives a dog" (ké
xavariz se jeg).

--
languages of Azir------> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/index.html>---
hmiller (Herman Miller)   "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com  email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" /  there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

Reply