CHAT: Linux etc. was(Re: Zelandish (was: 2nd pers. pron. forGod))

Someone wrote:
>  >> yep. one of my favourite things about the english
>  >> language is its tendency to get active and passive
>  >> muddled up ( and also the use of the passive with the
>  >> active's indirect/prepositional object as subject : 'i
>  >> was given a book'
Actually, that's arguably because English doesn't have a direct/indirect
object distinction, but rather a primary/secondary object distinction,
that is:
Subj         Prim. Obj     Subj    Passive
I    saw the man       --> The man was seen
Subj          Prim. Obj Sec. Obj      Subj    Passive   Sec. Obj.
I    gave the man       the book  --> The man was given the book
Subj          Prim. Obj Sec. Obj      Subj   Prim. Obj Prep. Phrase
I    gave the man       the book  --> I gave the book  to the man
    Subj.    Passive   Prep. Phrase
--> The book was given to the man

Only the primary object may be made into the subject of a passive
sentence.  To make the secondary object into a subject, you must first
convert it into a primary object by demoting the previous primary object
to a prepositional phrase.

>  >> 'i could tell i was being talked
>  >> about', 'she always liked being looked up to' &c. )
Which is a different construction, as indicated by the fact that the
preposition remains.  *"The man was given the book to" is ungrammatical.

>  >But that's one of the beauties of the whole shebang.  Mind you, you can say -
>  >and be understood - "the house was abuilding" for "the house was being
>  >built".
That would mean "The house was building" (and would thus sound very odd,
how can a house build anything?  :-)).  "A- ... -ing" is simply the
archaic form of the progressive.

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42