Re: OT: sorta OT: cases: please help...

In a message dated 12/6/01 4:55:55 AM, DigitalScream@AOL.COM writes:

>In a message dated 12/6/01 12:42:43 AM, anstouh@YAHOO.COM.AU writes:
>
><< Well, being is something that you do, so you could argue it is one.
>>>
>
>    Huh.  I think being could be something you do, but even if you're not
>doing it, you still are; seems like it could go either way.  I could do
>nothing and still be.  In fact, I'd have to do something pretty forceful
>in
>order not to be.  This, however, is branching on the philosophic: Is being
>passive or active or neither or both?  I'd go for the last one.
>
>-David
Actually, it's kinda funny. Being is "something you do" in one sense, but
then look at this:
"Did you see that movie?"
"Yeah, I did."
"Was it good?"
*"Yeah, it did."

So, "do" can't actually replace "be," which I think has some significance.

And about the "object" of "be" being in the nominative vs. accusative, it is,
at least in my dialect, absolutely always accusative (or oblique, or
objective, or whatever you want to call it. *"That is he" is just as wrong as
*"I saw he". You only say the former if you're trying to impress an English
teacher or if you're feeling theatrical or something.

IIRC, Turkish also has the object of "be" in the accusative.

Josh Roth
http://members.aol.com/fuscian/eloshtan.html