Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx (Dorothy J Heydt)
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:30:03 GMT
In article <gbxv5j3nw2bk.v9rvaeabx1r7.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Brian M. Scott <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Also, I think that Dorothy's probably right in thinking that
>the comment refers also to the syntax: English and Chinese
>are both largely analytic and even have similar word order.
Now SVO seems like such a *logical* word order to me. That, of
course, is because I grew up with it. Was it Suzette Hayden
Elgin who said SVO is evil and sexist because it involves a mean
macho verb ruthlessly inflicting its will upon the subservient
object? Whoever it was, I perform irreverent gestures in its
direction.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: Lucy Kemnitzer
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: John W. Kennedy
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- References:
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: kochunhu
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Endless fun for linguists
- Prev by Date: Re: Representing futuristic English
- Next by Date: Re: writers wanted...
- Previous by thread: Re: Endless fun for linguists
- Next by thread: Re: Endless fun for linguists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|