Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Translation pattern of 'to have'?

From:Zach May <zachmay@...>
Date:Sunday, March 4, 2001, 17:11
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Sulani <dnsulani@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?

> On 4 March, Jesse Bangs wrote: > > >I'm seeing a lot of what seems like > >syntactic smoke and mirrors propogated, and I have to object. > > An objection, it would appear, is had by Jesse. ;-)
<snip> This whole thread reminds me of a running joke in my English class: the teacher was looking over some essays we had written and noticed a lot of people had used the passive voice. So, she went into this big spiel about how it was "ineffective and awkward." :) So then, every writing I did for about a week included atleast three glaringly obvious examples of passive voice thrown in on purpose and one day every transitive verb I spoke in that class was put into the passive voice. She nearly killed me. :) But seriously: the sentence "An objection ... is had by Jesse." *does* seem to me quite awkward, even if it is grammatical, simply because it's in the passive. It just doesn't "sound" right. Some of the other phrases in question, "We're having a good time." for example, seem, to me atleast, to be just idiomatic usage of "to have." In the case of "We're having a good time," I don't believe any possessing is going on at all, making it rather irrelevant to the thread. Further, the... umm, how should I put it... "dirty" interpretation of "having a dog", is also pretty idiomatic. I wouldn't worry about that either. Well... my first real post. Whew. I hope I don't sound like an idiot! :p - Zach May.


Herman Miller <hmiller@...>