Re: Dead languages?
docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 07/21/04
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Possibly stupid question for you IBM mainframers... :-)"
- In reply to: Joseph Katnic: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: Andrew Werden: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Andrew Werden: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 21 Jul 2004 08:00:35 -0400
In article <210720041935067106%usrr@post.no.mail>,
Joseph Katnic <usrr@post.no.mail> wrote:
>In article <cdh80o$c47$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Mike Walters
><walters@wisp.physics.YOURwisc.eduPANTS> wrote:
>
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> >>Unlike English, where normal word order is SVO (subject, verb, object),
>> >>Latin,
>> >>along with Japanese, has no normal word order. One can rearrange the words
>> >>in a
>> >>sentence and it still says the same thing.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is similar to what I was taught about Ancient Greek, where order word
>> > important is very not.
>>
>>
>> Sound like Yoda, you do!
>
>BAH!!
>
>Yoda, sound like, you do!
Oh boy... many of funs to be having!
What about 'You, Yoda sound do, like'?
DD
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Possibly stupid question for you IBM mainframers... :-)"
- In reply to: Joseph Katnic: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: Andrew Werden: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: Andrew Werden: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]