In a message dated 05/12/2001 12:53:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:
<< It's easy
to say "Because the phrase FUNCTIONS as a nominal, it IS a
nominal, but it's another matter to prove it grammatically. >>
Dear Dave:
It's hard for me to relate or respond to these kinds of observations and
claims, so at this point I will simply thank you for the discussion and wish
you well. I have given my reasons for disagreeing with your view, and you
have given reasons why you believe your view is possible.
I do not believe my requests for grammatical support have been satisfied.
Instead, your response is that myself and others here have failed in
demonstrating that a term functioning as a nominal is actually a nominal in
the sentence in which it functions as such. . .
Best regards,
Greg Stafford
Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
, (continued)