Re: I came in + the things + OO theories

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 25/07/99 09:45:35  , Barry a =E9crit :

> i think this is because we're in it for the fun, not to prove anything to
>  anyone (for the most part :) )
well, i feel like i was too much trying to prove something here
and i feel sorry for that. but the question was there and
whatever my answer was it did not deserve flat denial.
i wrote a few plain gibberish that fortunately were not responded by
others out of both amusement and friendship, i guess. this one
was not to prove i was right and Nik was wrong, but
only to explain why japanese was so and why it is nothing special
like japanese bray it over and over. english is a hundred times
more exotic to me. Godbless picton dwarves :-).

there is always a way to prove that someone is wrong or right
in anything and whatever facts are.
for instance, i think that japanese "non-morphological"
comparative really stems from japanese adjective takai
being verbal (takai =3D to be tall - takai no =3D the tall one
ichiban takai no =3D the tallest one). "grand" is "epith=E8te"
and considered by french as definite noun
rooted ("le grand" - "le plus grand") while english
allows both references ("the tall one" - "the tallest/most tall").
Jim's question was very precise, reading about
"attributive" adjectives.
maybe verbal adjectives are not really attributive.
that's why i said that i was maybe missing the point.
depends what attributive means.
so maybe the question itself is wrong.
that must be it.
i'm right and Jim and Nik and Barry are wrong.


mathias