Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot
| From: | Dr. John Leland <leland@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 17:55 |
|---|
You are quite right, considering the "be"example. For most words, it would
not make a difference, but judging from that example you are correct.
John Leland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amanda Babcock" <langs@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: C'ali update: Split-S cross-referencing, agentive pivot
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:31:26AM -0400, John Leland wrote:
>
> > Classical grammarians or Renaissance scholars or what? Likewise why do
> > English dictionaries list verbs under the root (present tense active)
> > form, but normally use the infinitive "to" construction in the
definition?
>
> Er, I don't think they really do list it under the present tense active
> form. I think they list it under the "infinitive minus to" form.
Otherwise,
> "be" would be found under "am", "are" or "is", wouldn't it?
>
> Amanda
>
Replies