1399:— but since the compiler needs to choose from among the overloaded versions that have already been declared, and to ignore any overloaded versions that have yet to be declared, I'm pretty sure it must choose a version at parse-time. Even if that's not the case, and the parsing stage really is as simple as in C, the current description doesn't completely apply to C++, because the term "multiplication" doesn't necessarily apply to the behavior of the overloaded operator. —
563:"Objective pronoun" is only a term I've heard applied to English, with its partial three-case (subjective/objective/possessive) system. In discussing other languages, more specific terms are typically used; either accusative/dative/ablative, or direct-object/indirect-object/prepositional. Are you saying that when applied to a Romance language, "objective pronoun" would mean a direct- or indirect-object pronoun, but not a prepositional pronoun?
31:
404:
1077:, which can be both indirect object pronouns (in which case they're clitics) and prepositional pronouns (in which case they're not). Anyway, I know we've been through this, and I don't wish to be too insisting. I'm sure I've already given you some food for thought. Regards, and thank you both again for the stimulating discussion. :-)
1002:
My understanding of the meaning of "indirect object" (though I'm a layman in these matters) is that it is the beneficiary of an action: in the sentence "I gave him the ball", the ball is what is given, but "he" is who receives it. I understand that this may be difficult to grasp for
English speakers,
733:
I only speak French and
Spanish (and Spanish not well), but my understanding is that both your phrasing and mine do work for all Romance languages, except insofar as they imply that subject pronouns aren't clitics (which is valid except in French and perhaps its closest relatives, other langues d'Oïl
486:
I would like to add an observation: you should be cautious about using terms such as "emphatic pronouns" when describing the
Romance languages. There is a longstanding tradition of using such terms, due to French cultural influence, but, while they work well for French (where, as Ruakh has observed,
983:
I agree that "object pronoun" (or even "indirect object pronoun") is ultimately ambiguous in the
Romance languages (at least some of them). This is because objects (of verbs) can be represented by prepositional or by non-prepositional pronouns, which are different from each other, unlike in English.
576:
That's how I would used it, but I can't claim that it's standard practice in
Romance grammars. (Actually, Romance grammars seem to cling on to obscure, unenlightening terminology like "oblique pronoun" and "circumstantial complement".) But perhaps you should scratch what I said, anyway. It's easy to
1019:
Not all stressed pronouns are emphatic. For example, all pronouns used after a preposition are stressed, but they aren't necessarily used for emphasis (I suppose this might be because the prepositions themselves are typically clitics). More often than not, they are not emphatic. And, in
Spanish and
329:
appears to me to make no claims whatsoever about prepositional pronouns, nor about subject pronouns. To disprove this statement one must show at least one example of a non-prepositional object pronoun which is not a clitic. Subject pronouns seem irrelevant to this end. Of coures, the statement
1238:
Hi Chabuk, thanks for your comment. I'm aware of the need to keep
Knowledge verifiable, and am looking for good references to support these claims. (I'm also aware of the need to attribute claims to specific people, rather than to the vague "many "; I'm working on this as well.) In the meantime,
1472:
I addition to improved readability and network load, the lighter pages need less archivations. Keeping garbage on pages will archive unresolved issues which is extra nonsense. Nonsense is evil. Excuse me to producing it. But I do not understand why are wikipedians oppose to eliminating it.
1418:
is the multiplication operator, I guess it would not be in the spirit of a
Knowledge article at this technical level to use it in such a context without further explanation (the average reader is more likely to be confused that understand that the syntactic token was being referred to).
1448:, not I, who objected to the removal of the discussion; I objected only to the striking-out of my comments, since on the English Knowledge a struck-out comment is a comment whose author has retracted it. (That is, your edit made it look like I had retracted my comments; I hadn't.)
1158:
I just wanted the article to be consistent. "Standardize" had already been written elsewhere in the article, before the occurrence of "standardisation". It just so happens that I am
American, too, and standardise is considered wrong according to my Firefox. That is all.
294:
The subject pronouns were actually the main reason I made that change; your version claims that subject pronouns are all clitics, which mine does not. (The subject pronouns are emphatic-only in all major
Romance languages except French, and in French they're clitics.)
734:
and the langues d'Oc). Personally, I prefer my phrasing — I could easily see indirect object pronouns being thought of as "prepositional" and thereby engendering confusion in your version — but I guess you disagree. Really, I don't think it's a big deal either way.
1295:
I did a lot of work on that Adjectives page before I registered. I'm still not satisfied with it and I'll probably return to it. I so far haven't made large changes to many pages, mainly minor edits, but that page had an enormous error on it that needed fixing.
686:: it's a stressed word when used as a disjunctive pronoun, but a clitic when used as an indirect object pronoun. But, you see, that's why I think the term "direct or indirect object pronoun" can be misleading: some people may read that and conclude that, since
1047:
in Spanish (barring loísmo and/or laísmo). In other words, it refers to the pronouns that represent indirect objects and that do not require prepositions. It's true that other pronouns — prepositional pronouns, non-personal pronouns, etc. — can be used with
433:
Oh, I was being stupid! I took "non-prepositional object pronoun" to mean "a pronoun other than a prepositional object pronoun", rather than "an object pronoun other than a prepositional object pronoun". Thanks for your comment; I understand better now. :-)
1390:
and the properties of the various type specifications, in order to determine which function is the correct one. Now, you might think that this doesn't affect the parse tree — after all, no matter what function actually ends up getting called, we still have
1457:; life is simpler if we leave discussions intact until the page gets overly long, at which point archive dead discussions. I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as (s)he seems to, though; in his/her place, I wouldn't have reverted the removal.
1272:
I've been editing Knowledge for a while, but only registered a few days ago. I was surprised with a welcome and some useful links on my talk page from you soon afterwards. Thanks for that. I wonder, though, was that "Welcome" from you automated?
276:
with the argument that "they're not all prepositional, either", I disagree with your change. While in some languages (French) emphatic pronouns may appear alone, each and every one of those appears after prepositions as well. Furthermore,
863:
is circumstancial (telling where), (non-nuclear); the fact that they must be somewhere is a requirement of the physical universe, not a requirement of English — the same nuclear sentence would be quite coherent without it. The first
999:. Not only are the pronouns used for "him" different in the two cases, but the latter is a clitic, while the former is not. We do, however, tend to regard both of them as indirect pronouns, as the two sentences are synonymous.
369:
is rather blanketting. Exampls were given for French, Portugese, and Spanish. Were Italian, Romanian, Ladino, etc. taken into account? I suggest limiting the phrase to languages checked, something like:
868:
is quite different. It is nuclear (non-circumstancial); it labels the content of the decision, the primary recipient of the act of deciding. Stated or understood, this is a requirement of the notion
1239:
since I think we can all agree that these criticisms have been made and are fairly common, at least among American Jewry, it makes sense to preserve this section in some form, albeit with all the {{
1276:
I thought it might have been personal since we had both contributed to the same article around the day I registered, but the slickness of it made it seem automated or at least pre-designed to me.
487:
one of the main factors in choosing between pronouns is stress) they are less adequate for other Romance languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, where syntax is more prominent than stress, IMHO.
577:
describe the clitic pronouns in Spanish or Portuguese -- they're the ones that are neither subject pronouns, nor governed by a preposition -- , but it's more complicated in French. Take a look at
394:
Is this a matter of definition, or was it discovered? In any event, while I have long thought that a clitic, as part of its definition, lacks phonologial stress, it seems to me that the phrase
1434:
There was my fussy question. You have helped me to understand my fault. The discussion makes no sense anymore. It takes internet bandwidth and reduces readability. Why should it be preserved? --
1173:
Please do NOT remove external links (Occitan page) only because you dislike it, if you believe that some informations are not relevant, do start a discussion and provide serious explanations.
720:
Yes, that is true. I guess O'Ryan was right, and examples should probably be explained one language (or two) at a time. My phrasing does work for Spanish and Portuguese alone, though. :-)
136:
Thank you, I was not aware of this. Needless to say, I am sorry if I offended you. I would like to mention, however, that American English is quickly becoming an international standard.
453:"Emphatic" can be a term of art — in French, the pronouns that are ordinarily used as objects of prepositions can also be used disjunctively (with no role in the sentence, like the
457:
in « Moi, je suis d'accord », "Me, I agree") or as emphatic versions of other pronouns, especially subject pronouns (since the other pronouns are clitics; so « Il est fou » → «
906:
is prepositional (and not a clitic)? Despite my tendency to G2-ishness above, that seems a useful distinction to me — possibly because of having already studied some Spanish.
581:. I looked this up in a French grammar yesterday, and I think that for example all the indirect object pronouns are clitics, and all the disjunctive pronouns are stressed. Yet
330:
could be correct but not adaquate — because of other clitics. In that case, why not keep the statement and add a further statement that forms X, Y, and Z are also clitics?
108:
easy for me to slip into concision without realizing what the educated layperson will or will not grok at first glance. I think the article's coming along nicely. Thanks!
469:
for this reason. In the other major Romance languages, subject pronouns aren't clitics, so both subject pronouns and prepositional pronouns can be used emphatically.
925:
maybe a little terse. Now I like terse, but I wonder whether a goal of Knowledge articles isn't to be clear to those who don't know anything of the matter at hand?
1609:
Jesus, did I happen upon that snops story just as it got posted or did the two of us just happen to read it at the same time out of some strange coincidence?
1292:- No, by "seeming automated" I didn't mean it in a negative way at all. It was a nice gesture and pointed me to some important guidelines at the same time.
1382:. In the case of multiple compatible overloaded versions of the operator, the C++ compiler must apply a fairly complex algorithm, based on the types of
620:
ai dit » is very unidiomatic (I'm almost inclined to mark it with an asterisk instead of a question mark). The usual thing to say would be « C'est à
401:
I very much regret writing at such length on so many points; experience says that this often results in 90% being ignored and 9% being misunderstood!
1056:
to express indirect objects, but that's not how the term "indirect object pronoun" is used. (Don't ask me why; I assume it's a pedagogical thing.)
524:
but I'm afraid it's still not right. The problem is that prepositional pronouns -- which are never clitics -- can also represent objects. Regards.
1612:
1176:
837:. This definition "ambivilates" between semantic and morphological/syntactic criteria. So it gives indecisive aid and comfort to both G2 and G1.
616:
can be either an indirect-object pronoun or a disjunctive pronoun, but it would be very strange to emphasize it in its indirect-object use; ?« Je
308:
I'm trying to follow this discussion and am having some difficulty. I'm probably missing something, because the two formulations do not look
398:
is a way of leaving open the possibility that some "clitic" be required to always carry more stress than its "host". How confused am I here?
392:
One characteristic shared by all clitics is a lack of prosodic independence. A clitic must attach to an adjacent word, known as its host.
180:, after my "disputed" template and remarks went unanswered. One reason I hesitated is that it is just conceivable that some school uses
1624:
1188:
1210:
is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Knowledge by encouraging editors to
855:
In my own usage I have tended to be in G2. Take the well known example illustrating the destinction, nuclear vs. circumstancial: (3)
649:, which are identical in almost all forms. In particular, I think the line between « Nous faisons » (ostensibly-clitic subject
284:
So, I think my phrasing makes the explanation more accurate than the expression "most non-emphatic personal pronouns". Regards.
1215:
872:. Only a mystic, I think, could be incoherent enough to claim decisions without content. So I tend to consider that first
848:
means not directly connected to the verb, that is, connected instead by means of a preposition. Thus only (2) contains an
965:
416:
218:
194:
184:
to mean self-reference. I found no support for that though, and corrected the articles to what I did find support for.
834:
1636:), which includes newly-updated stories. I don't know why that page was updated today, but that's how I saw it. :-) —
1218:, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other
386:. Is it intended semantically or phonologically? Do the two necessarily go together? I notice that the article on
1039:
The term "indirect object pronoun" is fairly well standardized when referring to French and Spanish, at least: it's
1219:
38:
1317:. Can you tell me what other possible syntactic/semantic interpretations can be given to this sequence. Thanks.
1223:
890:
At long last I am ready to ask about an example from Romance. It will be Spanish, since, aside from Miss Piggy's
344:
appears to make no claim about emphatic forms, nor about non-personal pronouns for that matter. The key word is
71:
59:
578:
1620:
1184:
1313:
I would not claim to be an expert on C++ syntax but I cannot think of any other possible interpretations of
1207:
707:
But doesn't that line of reasoning apply equally well to the "non-prepositional object pronoun" phrasing?
1515:
developed its singular senses." Are you sure about this? I thought the 2nd person plural has always been
1616:
1180:
320:
246:
1094:
Your editings and the whole clean-up work are much appreciated. I intend to add new material tommorow.
962:
413:
215:
191:
1327:
Since C++ allows operator overloading, it could be a call to a function with a prototype of the form
1222:
that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at
1131:
1003:
since the English language doesn't distinguish morphologically between direct and indirect objects.
1297:
1284:
1202:
Your recent contribution(s) to Knowledge are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide
957:
408:
210:
186:
1196:
506:
261:
242:
112:
92:
1591:
1528:
770:
since I don't have references handy) to be inconsistency in its use: Take the sentence, (1)
513:
510:
338:
323:
269:
265:
249:
85:
1420:
1318:
1310:
Re: your comment on this character sequence having other possible interpretations in C++.
1088:
47:
17:
1020:
Portuguese, subject pronouns are stressed, too, even though they are often not emphatic.
1603:
1474:
1454:
1445:
1435:
1211:
1203:
1016:
Yes, pronouns used for emphasis are always stressed words in the Romance languages; but
165:
157:
101:
1492:
1099:
349:
1633:
1283:, I see that you and I started out life in close spacial proximity, if not timewise.
1078:
1027:
881:
721:
695:
600:
551:
525:
488:
285:
786:
is, I believe labeled up differently by different grammarians. Here for some (G1)
1214:
they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as
794:, since it is introduced by a preposition. For others (G2), in both (1) and (2)
1573:
singular as to demand a formally singular reflexive/emphatic pronoun, such that
1240:
1228:
1127:
1120:
682:
Ah, I see where you're coming from, now. I absolutely agree with you concerning
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1640:
1594:
1581:
1531:
1477:
1466:
1438:
1423:
1403:
1321:
1300:
1287:
1258:
1247:
1232:
1163:
1144:
1134:
1112:
1102:
1081:
1060:
1030:
969:
738:
724:
711:
698:
673:
603:
567:
554:
541:
528:
491:
473:
438:
420:
299:
288:
222:
198:
142:
125:
115:
95:
1637:
1578:
1463:
1400:
1280:
1255:
1244:
1160:
1141:
1109:
1057:
984:
For example, in Portuguese "I gave the ball to him", literally translated, is
735:
708:
670:
564:
538:
470:
435:
296:
122:
798:
is identically the recepient of the ball, a single role required by the verb
204:
Thanks for patching. I was worried, since I found the 2006-07-13 version of
161:
153:
139:
483:
O'RyanW has explained the matter better than I ever could. Thank you! :-)
1577:
is essentially a modern innovation that happens to have existed before.) —
852:
in the proper sence. How (1) is accounted for in this view I don't know.
169:
1366:
is an object with that function available (either because it belongs to
121:
You're the one doing most of the work; I'm just along for the ride. :-)
1009:
I guess the reason why I was uncomfortable with Ruakh's terms is that:
403:
1410:
I don't think I would call overloading a different interpretation of
387:
234:
1243:}} tags that I made a point of including when I wrote the section. —
537:
Yeah, but that's not what's meant by "indirect object pronoun" etc.
1565:
by around 1570. That said, this was long before there were uses of
1503:," and you added, "This development was irrelevant in the case of
1108:
Glad to be of help. You're doing great work with the article. :-)
1495:, you changed the part that said, "others use the singular form
208:
self-contraditcory, and its examples went totally over my head.
782:
in that sentence is an indirect object. But the sentence (2)
624:
que j'ai dit ». One could argue that indirect-object–pronoun
372:
in the Romance languages, French, Portugese, and Spanish', ...
25:
1347:, or to a class member function with a prototype of the form
550:
I see your point, but why not just say "objective pronouns"?
1561:
as the standard form around 1540, and completely obsoleted
1537:
Pretty sure, yes: it's what the OED says in its entries on
1590:
Oh, okay, now I understand. Thanks for explaining that. --
1069:
Fair enough, but the problem (in French) is pronouns like
840:
Amusingly clouding the question is the sence of the word
829:
Here I find it interesting to look at the definition of
152:
I wonder if you would mind glancing at the articles for
980:
Hello again, O'Ryan. :-) Here's some feedback for you:
465:'s crazy"). These pronouns are sometimes called simply
1206:
for your information. Keeping Knowledge accurate and
810:
in (2) indirect objects. (I think this presumes that
1372:, or because it belongs to a class that derives from
1254:
Your new version is O.K. (by me, at least). Thanks. —
1339:, where the type specifications are compatible with
1130:
article — and so quickly after I had tagged it too!
1545:. (Incidentally, the story is fairly similar with
790:is not an object of the verb at all, let alone an
172:? On 21 October I corrected the articles for both
1634:http://syndicated.livejournal.com/snopes_dot_com/
632:are identical cognates rather than a single word.
363:Two other questions trouble me: First the phrase
348:, which I don't know how to evaluate. Can it be
1378:) and the type specification is compatible with
1006:Your analysis of the Spanish example is correct.
585:, for example, can be both! Compare for example
1279:By the way, from the banners down the right of
814:(pre- or post-) is (sometimes?) shorthand for
461:est fou » is the shift from "He's crazy" to "
8:
1126:Kudos for the good work that you did on the
880:, or alternatively, a direct object of the
758:taken by itself seems clear; to me it says
281:pronouns are neither emphatic nor clitics.
132:Thank you. RE: American and British English
760:any pronoun not preceeded by a preposition
1523:was an innovation perfectly analogous to
1226:that best suits each article. Thanks! --
1557:started to emerge around 1500, replaced
751:Thanks for the interesting explanations.
100:And thanks for the collaboration on the
802:. This for (G2) justifies calling both
822:is in the implicit dative case, while
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
857:They decided on the boat on the boat.
844:. I think I have seen it stated that
766:seems less clear; there seems (I say
264:, the articles and most non-emphatic
233:Hi. Regarding the revert you made at
7:
1632:I follow Snopes.com's RSS feed (via
1511:was already in use as a plural when
1453:That said, I do tend to agree with
1151:Re: British vs. American spellings.
909:What is my point?? Just that the (
641:I think the bigger wrinkle is with
497:Ruakh, I just saw your latest edit:
360:in terms of frequency of occurance?
1169:Links removed, stay neutral please
894:I don't know any French. Take (4)
24:
991:, while "I gave him the ball" is
1041:me/te/lui/se/y/en/nous/vous/leur
902:is indirect (and a clitic), and
898:If I understand correctly here,
835:SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms
402:
229:Clitics in the Romance languages
29:
826:is in an explicit dative case.)
376:Second, the import of the word
84:Thanks for the clean up on the
396:lack of prosidic independencee
1:
1288:12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
1259:20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
1248:19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
1233:22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
1145:15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1135:07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1082:14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1061:14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1031:11:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
970:07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
739:03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
657:faisons » (emphatic subject
1641:22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
1595:20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1582:20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1532:14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1499:analogously to the singular
1478:12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
1467:00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
1439:22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
1164:15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1113:19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
1103:16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
725:22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
712:21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
699:20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
690:is an object pronoun, it is
674:19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
604:19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
568:00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
555:00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
542:00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
529:00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
492:16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
474:14:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
439:14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
421:06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
352:? Was a count made? Is it
300:04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
289:20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
223:19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
199:02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
143:03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
126:02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
116:01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
96:16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
1424:19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
1404:16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
1322:02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
1301:10:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
356:in a list of all forms, or
245:, the articles and the non-
88:article. Much appreciated!
1657:
1265:"Welcome" on My Talk Page?
511:direct and indirect object
949:aggle of people who like
756:non-prepositional pronoun
955:(that includes me!)(;-)
628:and disjunctive-pronoun
579:French personal pronouns
366:in the Romance languages
764:indirect object pronoun
148:Homophora and endophora
1045:me/te/le/se/nos/os/les
876:an indirect object of
784:He gave the ball to me
274:
268:forms are clitics. In
254:
1615:comment was added by
1430:Accumulating nonsense
1414:. While technically
1204:references or sources
1179:comment was added by
778:everyone agrees that
661:) is somewhat blurry.
317:the articles and the
258:
239:
42:of past discussions.
896:A mi me gusta el té.
816:detached case marker
1132:Raifʻhār Doremítzwr
772:He gave me the ball
509:, the articles and
516:forms are clitics.
337:most non-emphatic
1628:
1362:appended), where
1216:original research
1197:Birthright Israel
1192:
915:non-prepositional
507:Romance languages
467:emphatic pronouns
342:forms are clitics
335:the articles and
262:Romance languages
243:Romance languages
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1648:
1610:
1417:
1413:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1371:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1316:
1224:inline citations
1220:reliable sources
1212:cite the sources
1174:
913:on) expressions
514:personal pronoun
406:
339:personal pronoun
333:The formulation
315:The formulation
266:personal pronoun
252:are all clitics.
86:adaptive grammar
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1611:—The preceding
1607:
1489:
1432:
1415:
1411:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1358:(possibly with
1355:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1314:
1308:
1267:
1200:
1175:—The preceding
1171:
1153:
1124:
1092:
1089:Semantic change
940:stands for the
850:indirect object
831:indirect object
818:. Thus in (1)
792:indirect object
612:It's true that
327:are all clitics
231:
150:
134:
82:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Ruakh
12:
11:
5:
1654:
1652:
1644:
1643:
1606:
1604:Catherine Bell
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1585:
1584:
1488:
1481:
1470:
1469:
1459:
1458:
1450:
1449:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1407:
1406:
1374:
1368:
1353:
1349:
1334:
1330:
1307:
1304:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1251:
1250:
1199:
1194:
1170:
1167:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1123:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1043:in French and
1034:
1033:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1000:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
926:
907:
888:
853:
838:
827:
752:
744:
743:
742:
741:
728:
727:
717:
716:
715:
714:
702:
701:
679:
678:
677:
676:
665:
664:
663:
662:
636:
635:
634:
633:
607:
606:
573:
572:
571:
570:
558:
557:
547:
546:
545:
544:
532:
531:
521:
520:
519:
518:
499:
498:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
426:
425:
424:
423:
399:
374:
361:
331:
324:object pronoun
313:
303:
302:
272:, for example:
250:object pronoun
230:
227:
226:
225:
166:Talk:endophora
158:Talk:homophora
149:
146:
133:
130:
129:
128:
104:article. It's
102:formal grammar
81:
78:
75:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1653:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:216.165.38.83
1614:
1605:
1602:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:Singular they
1486:
1482:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1437:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1311:
1305:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1298:Grammarmonger
1293:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1285:Grammarmonger
1282:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:81.185.96.206
1178:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
996:
990:
989:
982:
981:
979:
978:
971:
967:
964:
960:
959:
954:
952:
948:
944:
939:
935:
931:
927:
924:
920:
919:prepositional
916:
912:
908:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
862:
858:
854:
851:
847:
843:
839:
836:
832:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
740:
737:
732:
731:
730:
729:
726:
723:
719:
718:
713:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
675:
672:
669:
668:
667:
666:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
637:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
602:
599:
597:
591:
590:
584:
580:
575:
574:
569:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
553:
549:
548:
543:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
527:
523:
522:
517:
515:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
500:
496:
495:
494:
493:
490:
484:
475:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
422:
418:
415:
411:
410:
405:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
375:
373:
368:
367:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
341:
340:
332:
328:
326:
325:
322:
321:prepositional
314:
312:incompatible.
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
298:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
282:
280:
273:
271:
267:
263:
257:
253:
251:
248:
247:prepositional
244:
238:
236:
228:
224:
220:
217:
213:
212:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
193:
189:
188:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
147:
145:
144:
141:
137:
131:
127:
124:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
109:
107:
103:
98:
97:
94:
89:
87:
79:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1608:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1490:
1484:
1471:
1433:
1352:::operator*(
1312:
1309:
1294:
1291:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1269:Hello Ruakh
1268:
1227:
1201:
1172:
1157:
1154:
1140:Thanks! :-)
1125:
1095:
1093:
1074:
1070:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1040:
994:
992:
987:
985:
956:
950:
946:
942:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:Oh yes, the
922:
918:
914:
910:
903:
899:
895:
891:
884:
882:phrasal verb
877:
873:
869:
865:
860:
856:
849:
845:
841:
830:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:. However,
759:
755:
754:A question:
691:
687:
683:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
598:qui m'a dit.
595:
593:
588:
586:
582:
504:
485:
482:
466:
462:
458:
454:
407:
395:
391:
383:
378:
377:
371:
365:
364:
357:
353:
345:
336:
334:
318:
316:
309:
283:
278:
275:
259:
255:
240:
232:
209:
205:
185:
181:
177:
173:
151:
138:
135:
110:
105:
99:
90:
83:
80:Appreciated!
65:
43:
37:
1592:Lazar Taxon
1529:Lazar Taxon
1519:, and that
1128:eye dialect
1121:eye dialect
986:Dei a bola
874:on the boat
866:on the boat
861:on the boat
859:The second
806:in (1) and
382:is unclear
36:This is an
1569:that were
1555:themselves
1551:themselves
1543:yourselves
1517:yourselves
1421:Derek farn
1329:operator*(
1319:Derek farn
1208:verifiable
911:unexpanded
885:decided on
812:adposition
694:a clitic.
587:Je lui ai
1475:Javalenok
1455:JRSpriggs
1446:JRSpriggs
1436:Javalenok
1375:classname
1369:classname
1354:type_spec
1350:classname
1335:type_spec
1331:type_spec
1281:your page
870:to decide
310:logically
206:homophora
182:homophora
178:endophora
174:homophora
162:endophora
154:homophora
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1625:contribs
1613:unsigned
1575:themself
1563:themself
1559:themself
1547:themself
1539:yourself
1525:themself
1521:yourself
1509:yourself
1507:, since
1501:yourself
1497:themself
1485:yourself
1189:contribs
1177:unsigned
1100:Dr Moshe
945:roup or
923:indirect
846:indirect
842:indirect
653:) and «
622:lui/elle
379:emphatic
350:verified
170:exophora
1483:Plural
1444:It was
1315:x * y ;
1306:x * y ;
1079:FilipeS
1028:FilipeS
958:O'RyanW
953:rammar.
878:decided
833:in the
722:FilipeS
696:FilipeS
601:FilipeS
552:FilipeS
526:FilipeS
505:In the
489:FilipeS
409:O'RyanW
388:clitics
286:FilipeS
279:subject
270:Spanish
260:In the
241:In the
211:O'RyanW
187:O'RyanW
39:archive
1229:Chabuk
1119:In re
1096:Shalom
997:a bola
921:, and
892:Moi?!?
692:always
594:C'est
390:says:
256:into:
237:from:
235:clitic
168:, and
1638:Ruakh
1579:Ruakh
1464:Ruakh
1412:x * y
1401:Ruakh
1397:(x,y)
1360:const
1256:Ruakh
1245:Ruakh
1161:Karch
1142:Ruakh
1110:Ruakh
1058:Ruakh
988:a ele
824:to me
808:to me
788:to me
776:think
768:seems
736:Ruakh
709:Ruakh
671:Ruakh
592:with
565:Ruakh
539:Ruakh
471:Ruakh
436:Ruakh
384:to me
297:Ruakh
123:Ruakh
16:<
1621:talk
1567:they
1549:and
1541:and
1527:. --
1386:and
1343:and
1185:talk
1155:Hi,
1075:nous
1073:and
1054:a/de
1050:à/de
993:Dei-
936:ang
800:give
774:. I
659:nous
655:Nous
651:nous
647:vous
645:and
643:nous
358:most
354:most
346:most
319:non-
176:and
140:UBeR
106:very
1513:you
1505:you
1491:In
1395:of
1071:lui
1052:or
995:lhe
932:in
688:lui
684:lui
630:lui
626:lui
618:lui
614:lui
596:lui
589:dit
583:lui
459:Lui
455:moi
113:QTJ
111:--
93:QTJ
91:--
1627:).
1623:•
1571:so
1553:;
1473:--
1333:,
1241:cn
1191:).
1187:•
1159:--
1098:.
968:)
938:G2
934:G1
917:,
904:mi
900:me
820:me
804:me
796:me
780:me
463:He
419:)
221:)
197:)
164:,
160:,
156:,
1619:(
1487:?
1462:—
1416:*
1393:*
1388:y
1384:x
1380:y
1364:x
1356:)
1345:y
1341:x
1337:)
1183:(
966:₪
963:☺
961:(
951:G
947:G
943:G
930:G
887:.
417:₪
414:☺
412:(
219:₪
216:☺
214:(
195:₪
192:☺
190:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.