Re: THEORY: unergative
| From: | Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, February 22, 2004, 20:13 |
|---|
Quoting J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...>:
> Wonder if there are any linguistic snipers...
They're the encyclopaediacs who, when you've formulated your well-researched
and thoroughly argued generalization, point out that one single language,
spoken by three dozen gaga old grandmothers in some exceptionally isolated
place that 99.99% of humanity has never heard of, breaks it in the 2nd person
future conditional.
> Lol as in Dutch or what? And don't look at me, I am not a "suspicious
> character" ;) I am just a lil quarky...
Did someone change the definition of of 'suspicious' when I wasn't looking?
> Got linguistic anti-matter?
>
> Linguistic anti-matter bomb anyone? ;)
If there were a such thing, we'd hear reports of the heads of children
learning those Iranian MRL languages exploding with much greater frequency.
Andreas