Re: OT: sorta OT: cases: please help...
| From: | Christopher Wright <faceloran@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, December 6, 2001, 22:01 |
|---|
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:09:24 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:
>Since when "being" is an action? "to be" is a copula, i.e. it links
together
>two entities by stating that they are identical, or that one is qualified
by
>the other (so semantically, it's rather the subject which here receives
>something): I am a student, here the subject "I" receives a
>denomination: "student". That's why in the vast majority of languages in
this
>kind of sentences both nouns are in the same case (nominative or
absolutive,
>depending whether it's a nominative-accusative language, or an ergative-
>absolutive language).
However, "to be" is a verb, and when there is a matter of grammar, it
usually doesn't care about meaning. You wouldn't distinguish the
conjugation of verbs of motion from the conjugation of sensory verbs, for
instance. You'll probably cite some language's word for "to be" at me, for
the sake of argument "ser" (Spanish), and say that it's highly irregular.
That's only because it's such a common word.
Anyway, grammar is separate from meaning. "Student" in the example defines
the subject, "I", but "I" am doing something. I am existing as a student. A
sentence requires a subject (though the subject is occasionally understood
from the verb and not written / spoken); you can say "I am", but you can't
say "am student" in English. (You can in many languages because they
inflect their verbs fully.)
> Whatever does the action is nominative, and whatever
>> receives
>> it is accusative.
>>
>
>Well, you take things the wrong way around. In those sentences it's the
subject
>which is defined or qualified, it doesn't do anything. So it's the subject
>there which is the receiver.
>Besides, there's only one language I know of which happens to use the
>accusative as the "object" of a verb "to be". That's Classical Arabic, in
>tenses other than present (where there is no need for a copula, and both
parts
>of the sentences are then in the nominative case). But in Classical
Arabic, in
>some kinds of sentences (including main clauses) you can mark the subject
with
>the accusative case! So the only language I know of which behaves the way
you
>describe it is a rather pathological case.
Those languages probably use the same case because the nominative is least
inflected. In a dictionary, you don't find entries listed in the dative or
genitive or locative or whatever other case. The verb "to be" is used so
often that people become lazy and stop distinguishing case. Some languages,
having evolved from others, come with that property pre-installed.
>> Hey, I might not know the fancy notation, but I know a lot more about
>> the
>> workings of language than some of you do.
>
>That's maybe what you think, but I guess you should go back and learn
again,
>because you're taking many things the wrong way. And we don't like to be
>insulted by people who think they know better. Even if some people know
less
>about languages than you, that doesn't mean you're allowed to insult them
like
>that!
It's merely a matter of where I place my slight intelligence. My priorities
are different than those of other people. Many of you, most of you, know
more than I do. Anyway, I shouldn't have brought it up; it was in poor
taste of me and egotistical. (At least I know when I'm being egotistical;
there's hope for me. Or is that just my ego again?)
And I *know* that I don't know X-SAMPA or IPA.
> I'm fresh into high school;
>> I
>> haven't had an opportunity to forget.
>
>You rather didn't have the opportunity to learn yet. You've learned only
the
>prescriptivist grammar that English teachers are still mistakingly using,
and
>which doesn't have anything to do with what English or other languages
actually
>are.
The textbooks aren't my only source of information; I *do* get out of my
house occasionally and sometimes even talk to other people. (An accurate
description, not a jest; is that bad?) I can see discrepancies between the
books and what is spoken.
The textbooks should keep abreast of the language, and the speakers should
stay with the "proper" forms. However, the textbook writers don't care, and
language change is inevitable.
> For instance, all of you had a
>> discussion about linking verbs and whether their adjectival objects
>> were
>> adjectives or adverbs. They're adjectives, by the way, because in most
>> languages you can remove the copula (isn't that what "to be" is
>> called?)
>> and still be understood. "The rag bloody" could be understood, even in
>> English, though it isn't proper; in Chinese (I think), it is proper.
>>
>
>But the discussion began with sentences like "he voted Liberal". What do
you
>make of that, O great understander of language, adjective or adverb? But
even
>though I agree with you about the linking verbs, the opinion of native
speakers
>is always more worth than some prescriptivist grammar.
"Liberal" started as an adjective and grew to encompass people of the mild
to moderate left-wing, between no political views and socialists. It cannot
be an adverb. However, there is no noun for it to modify. Therefore, it
must be the object of a missing preposition.
Is it just me, or did I detect sarcasm in that title?
Christopher, your foolish counterpart with whom you are heavily burdened
and who vexes you greatly.
http://tureklago.tripod.com
Replies