Re: Existential clauses

--- Carsten Becker <post@...> wrote:
> From: "Philippe Caquant" <herodote92@YAHOO.COM
>
> I guess this is what I mean? Waaaah, I'm completely
> confused now!
> Man, I really could it make as easy as this: You
> always use "to be" for
> such things, except if what follows "to be" is an
> adjective. But a fact
> does *not* tell us WHY things are like they are in
> this case. Now I do
> want to think about something in detail, but by
> doing that I only
> confuse myself.
Hem, I'm lost myself. Anyway you could say : the man
is standing on the lawn (French: l'homme se tient
debout sur la pelouse), so it wouldn't be the verb "to
be" any more. But that might be out of topic. Anyway,
my point is that what is true in one language does'nt
have to be so in another one.

>  > 'Le monde appartient à ceux qui se lèvent tôt'
> (French
>  > proverb: the world belongs to the ones who stay
>  > early).
>
> "Morgenstund' hat Gold im Mund", grrrrr! "Se lever"
> is in this context
> "to get up", though. "To stay" is "rester", no?
What's nice with Germans is that they are all the time
ready to make verses out of anything. As I read on a
yard toilet door in German Switzerland:

"Zwei Minuten scheisst ein Tier
Drei Minuten ein Polier
Und der arme Arbeitsmann
Scheisst so lange, er sitzen kann".

(I'm not quite sure about the word "Polier". Sehr
romantisch, anyway).

But, true, I wanted to say "to stand up", and not "to
stay".

>
> I already answered on that. What I meant was
> "adverbiale Bestimmung des
> Xes" (adverbial definition of x), where x can be
> anything that is left
> because there is no case for it (not among the
> "traditional" four cases
> of German at least).
Warum tut mir das Kopf so weh ?


=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail