--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:14 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <jpgillam@> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Judy, I agree with your analysis below. Reminds me of my MIU > >>> second year literature course with Rhoda Orme-Johnson. > > > > That's a course I'd most likely have enjoyed a lot. > > Do you recall any nuggets from it? > > I can tell you some nuggets from mine, on American Literature. She > basically spent an inordinate amount of time bashing the 60s and all > that they stood for--what that had to do with the course I've yet to > figure out--
Just curious, somehow I feel that using the shortened version of 'have' in a construction like that is a, well, "borderline case". It's my gut feeling that ''ve' above is not a "fully- auxiliary" (yikes!) verb but functions in the "near-primary" meaning of 'have'. No need to reply, just my "tapni heipni"... ;)
