On 3/27/2019 9:26 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Mar 26, 2019, at 11:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
Who said it's ungrammatical?
It looks like you did.
On Mar 24, 2019, at 4:59 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
It's not ungrammatical to elide an *'oH* which refers to *ngoDvam.* However, you never established the antecedent in the first place.
What you're really doing is *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'.* This is, of course, not allowed.
You also posted something even more full of multiple negatives that I think parses out to “you can say it but it’s illegal.” Are you making some sort of a distinction between “ungrammatical” and “against the rules”?
I said "it's not ungrammatical" to elide a pronoun. Then I said "What you're really doing is" making *'e'* a subject, and THAT is not allowed. I did not say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj* is ungrammatical, only that it has to assume an elided noun like *ngoDvam* to be grammatical. Good grief! mayqel asked if there was something wrong about *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj,* because he felt like there was. I was pointing out that his bad feeling probably came from mentally thinking of this as *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e',* which is a sentence that IS ungrammatical, and I said so. I also pointed out that mayqel's actual sentence itself is not actually ungrammatical, because it can be interpreted as something like *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj nogDvam.* I believed this was NOT what mayqel had been thinking, because of his bad feeling about the sentence. I also opined that this sentence was probably not the best way to say this, because there was an elided pronoun without an antecedent, and offered alternatives. This was a stylistic opinion on my part. I didn't tell anyone his sentence was ungrammatical, against the rules, or illegal. And if you all insist on continuing to find a way to read what I said that way, just take the above paragraph as a revised statement. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name