The answer at first seems very simple: no more than a grammar approach rules of the Royal English Academy and it will tell us "there were people" and, by the way we explain that there is an auxiliary verb constructions and compound loses its meaning. Then my question is: if I can make constructions of type A: "The children have eaten" that prevents me from doing a prayer of type B: "There were many children? We can not say that in some cases there may be conjugated verb in number and person, like any other verb, and not in others. The explanation given about this is that in the sentence to be working as an assistant, ie, supplements or "help" if you prefer the word "principal" (to eat) to have meaning, losing the auxiliary verb: something as strongly agree all linguists is that a sign language (one word) is composed of signifier (form) and meaning (substance) being first-phonological representation / "graphic" if we refer to the written language, phonetics if we refer to the spoken-which encloses the second, ie, the signifier is the continent, is the "container" that holds the meaning which is nothing that spark and drive that happens in our brains when we hear a word. According to this definition of words, none of them can vary, much less to lose its meaning immediately would be a word to be a mere noise, "so in a composite construction such as" have eaten "be kept fully its meaning is none other than "there is an item either tangible or abstract" (prayer "There is food" indicates the existence of food and "Work" means the existence of The obligation of work.) The problem arises if we accept the idea that I try to express how the verb is be like eating in the above example, how we analyze the sentence? Traditionally it is said that there + verb is all verbal nucleus, but if we continue with the idea that there is no help and accept the fact that a predicate can not have two cores verbal, would be that the compound verbs considered so far as the "principal" is but a complement of the verb be:
have -> core verb verbal + -> direct snap earlier.
addition, another aspect that proves to be not just a helper in the so-called verbal periphrasis, is the fact that from a syntagmatic point of view as much information is right in that verb, which will indicate the following example :
Let us take the sentences "The children have sung" and "The children would have sung." If we remove both the verb to have, we are "The children sang" In both cases, so we would have the same information on both. However, to "have" in the first indicates that it is an action in the past, while "have" indicates compliance in action: the most important element of the predicate from a grammatical point of view is precisely there. We could not do the same with singing, as though we have to combine as we please, provided it is in accordance with the subject, the verb "lead" in participle must always ... In the final analysis, I can always put "The children had / have / have / etc. sung, "but never" children (having conjugate) * sing / sing / sang / etc. " So as devoid of meaning should not be there in that it contains "chicha" predicate. Obviously some people may say that the most important communicatively to eat, because that tells us what children are doing, but the syntax, where the subject is not one who performs the action, actions are performed in reality, never in a sentence and we're not talking about the world but the language-but the subject is one noun that agrees in person and number with the verb and, therefore, that subject can be "children" as "Spacecraft", what really matters is the number, time, the person ... which is built prayer.
Another explanation to the fact that not only possible, but grammatically correct to ask if "there were many people" is that a sign language is word from the time that has conjugation (the famous-ar,-er,-ir, we were taught in school from an early age), being the exclusive elementeo verbs. I know there is conjugation (hab-er: third conjugation) and as far as I know anyone can add verb number and person, so no need to do more a simple syllogism:
If I can conjugate verbs in númeroy person and there is a verb ---->
---- Then I can> have to conjugate the verb in number and person so that I can say ----> "There were many girls," hain things must end, "habemos workers," etc.
addition, there are impersonal verbs, for there is no phrase without a subject ... it is simply impossible. Instead of fuck "some people" let's take a phrase that usually takes no subject says: "sold homes" ... it is not supposed to subject, being the "be" indirect object, "houses" the c.directo and "sell" the core verbal ... what if I told you that the subject is in the ending of the verb "sell" and is called "morphological subject? The verb is actually selling the verb" to vend - "and from there we add all the morphological elements that will tell us their number, person, time, Mode ... ie-er vend, vend-o-ido vend ... in the If vend-in, the morpheme "-in" indicates that the verb and by extension the entire phrase "sell flats" is in third person plural in the indicative mood, present tense ... Look how I could not say "sold flats" or "sell flats" precisely because the construction of such a phrase with "is" always oblige us to use the verb in third person singular so if quitásemos the "it" and we built the phrase "selling story" would say that the subject "is omitted" and that is the third person plural: we here or omitted or to omit anything, because as I said before the subject is embedded in its own verb ... since "story" is not the subject but to say that the phrase "sell flats" lacks subject only because it is obvious that is what i have done the grammarians so far is a mistake. So in a sentence like "some people" Clearly people are the cd and not the subject ... the subject is in the ending of the verb be in a "no" that indicates that the subject is third person singular.
On the other side and I think that although this explanation is less "scientific" is the most important, language, despite the deception that we have done enough philological studies, and even in Hispanic Philology itself, except in a handful exceptions, is not intended Main communication (that I know the monkeys, elephants, bees ... communicate and have no tongue), but knowledge, maintenance and expanción of both the individual idiesincracia used as a language community that uses emphasize language and uses , because I mean the mode of expression that has an individual / group that distinguishes it from another individual / group that has the same language / language (remember that because it is the same expression when using language that is Rafael Arozarena than does Alonso Quesada, in the Canary Islands and two-mode difrutar different literary styles.) Therefore, the language is the main banner of culture and identity of the people who handled and should handle it at will, but never according to the criteria of a given Royal Academy: rather it is the Academy which must leave Inquisitor normative tone and simply having a descriptive overview of the use that the speakers of a language. A clear example of that communication is not the main language was what happened in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria will be a couple of decades when it created the station of San Telmo. It is a bus station at which the politician in office-like to say that some political talk, let alone political because it is a profession that does not deserve to spend lines she decided to put lyrics on it loungers "Bus station" ... Thanks to God, canaries alert and had a number of complaints, protests and petitions to put an the name because that is none other than "Bus Station" ("Gauge" today only makes the sign of the season, but still better than the original.) The canaries are neither more nor less ignorant than other peoples, but something we do know is that "bus" means "bus", then what all the fuss if it was due to a canary as readable and communication is "bus" that " bus? Well, that when a canary read, hear or say in the islands 'bus' notice that something is rotten and he dies on the inside ... and that's the same with that we ban saying "there were many people": how an organization that says tend to be panhispánico such as the RAE can claim that "bad" building that prayer, when in the vast majority of English-speaking world has been said and fortunately some still ignored in Canary academic requirements and continues the verb conjugation be relevant to a case by case? So much so, that the Chilean Academy of Language speakers agree that conjugated the verb to have (in Chile we are not an "ignorant" for saying "Habemos many teachers in the yard. ") believe that everything that is grammatically correct, which is not an affront to the dignity of any human being and that the linguistic system allows us to say, is entirely lawful outside the Academy permitted or not . Above the law is the identity and the identity of a speaker is enclosed in his use of language and, above all, how does that use.
So from now I hope that readers who have not be offended when they see my texts "There were people" or the like. Regards.
0 comments:
Post a Comment