拿是把吗？

[Pedroski]

Shades of Noam Chomsky! Generative Grammar is a Phrasal Grammar, and makes the same assumptions (and a lot more) that other phrasal grammars make: words may be put in definite categories. Assumptions are not facts, however nice the little sentence trees look. 

 

So, is 当 here 'as' or 'be'? 'as' is 'so'

 

我拿你当亲人看待。

I [na] you as relative regard = I regard you as family

 

So, is 当 here a preposition or a verb, or both, or neither? What category will you choose?

[ZhangJiang]

I think 当 is verb here, because it can appear after 不 as 不当亲人 but cannot after 很. Then why 拿 is not a verb? I think it's that 我拿你 is not a sentence but 我拿你当亲人 is (also 你，我当亲人), which makes 拿 the preposition. With 当 a verb, 看待 is also a verb. It's OK that two verbs occur in one sentence, just like in 我请你吃饭

 

Pedroski I guess you must be very interested in language structures. I've read some grammar books so right or wrong I can answer some questions based on their theories and my own ideas. But somehow people without any grammar or structure concepts makes up sentences just as good, if not better (sometimes I feel more grammar knowledge and intense analysis make more actually not-so-good sentences acceptable.) I suppose the most natural way for the brain to learn language is not through conscious analysis but unconscious summary. So for a native speaker, to use the language correctly is easy but to explain it is hard. Do you agree?  I wonder if there is a no-analysis-just-learn method. But maybe that's only for small children with the ability to just learn.

[陳德聰]

ZhangJiang I think your explanation in #20 is spot on. It never occurred to me but that understanding of 拿 makes total sense. As a side note, I think that you're right in that unconscious summary is the most natural way to learn language, as that is what children do, but the no-analysis-just-learn technique is kind of what Pedroski is doing, and it's not succeeding most likely because as an adult he doesn't have the same volume of input and space to learn as children do.

As for 當... It's definitely a verb. I believe the term that is generally used is "coverb". Again, you seem to be really adamant that whatever existing theories can't account for everything... And yet this is an example that fits perfectly into the theory... So what the hell are you griping about?

[imron]

but the no-analysis-just-learn technique is kind of what Pedroski is doing

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that, in fact I'd say there is a fair amount of over analysis going on in his learning.