Re: Impersonal Passives and Quirky Case in Subject-Prominent Languages (was: Copula)

Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> ---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
I think it has become clearer that Eldin & I are coming at the problem
from different angles: at least it is clear from Eldin's reply that he
is considering _semantic_ roles as well as other criteria, whereas I was
(and am) considering the strictly _grammatical_ functions of morphology
& syntax. This is not to say that one approach is right and the other
isn't, or that one is better than the other. There is no reason why both
cannot be valid. But it is clear that part of our misunderstanding, at
least, stemmed from our different approaches.

In order not to bore list members the rest of my reply has been snipped
and sent to Eldin off-list

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
TRADUTTORE TRADITORE