There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Alex Fink
1.2. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1.3. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Logan Kearsley
1.4. Re: Curious verb construction
From: David McCann
1.5. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Peter Cyrus
1.6. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Padraic Brown
1.7. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Eric Christopherson
1.8. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Roger Mills
1.9. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Alex Fink
1.10. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1.11. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Roger Mills
1.12. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Logan Kearsley
1.13. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Eugene Oh
1.14. Re: Curious verb construction
From: kechpaja
1.15. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Eugene Oh
1.16. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Logan Kearsley
1.17. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1.18. Re: Curious verb construction
From: kechpaja
1.19. Re: Curious verb construction
From: MorphemeAddict
1.20. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Sam Stutter
1.21. Re: Curious verb construction
From: George Corley
1.22. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Alex Fink
1.23. Re: Curious verb construction
From: MorphemeAddict
1.24. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Padraic Brown
1.25. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:11 am ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In Russian one should say:
>
>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
>
>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that someone
>has to do something.
Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts; does
this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
grammatical anyways?)
Alex
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:56 am ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2012/1/24 Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > In most cases it is indeed a verb. Cf.
> > >
> > > Le hay cantar.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, "hay" -> "hay que".
> >
> > Or maybe I'm mistaken again... I haven't spoken the language for quite a
> > while.
> >
>
> No, either it is "Tiene que cantar" ("He has to sing"), which is the normal
> way to say it, or else "Ha de cantar", which is, I've been told, the same
> but more formal/literary. I think I would express "He is to sing tomorrow"
> just with "Canta mañana", "He sings tomorrow". I don't know any language
> apart from English where I wouldn't use a stupid present tense there...
Ok, I think I've mixed Spanish with my mothertongue...
> > in Spanish. Here _hay_ is an auxiliary verb "haber", which used to mean
> > > "to have", but is only used now as an auxiliary. It may be translated
> as
> > > something like "There is a need to go for him"
> >
>
> "Hay" is actually a contraction of "ha" (which comes, indeed, from "haber")
> with the locative particle that survives in French as "y" and in Catalan as
> "hi". The full "hay" corresponds etymologically with French "il y a" and
> with Catalan "hi ha", but the Spanish have reversed the order of the two
> words.
>
Nice to know, thanks!
> Greets,
> David
>
> --
> Dos ony tãsnonnop, koták ony tãsnonnop.
>
> http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/ <http://njenfalgar.4shared.com/>
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:35 am ((PST))
On 24 January 2012 07:11, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In Russian one should say:
>>
>>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
>>
>>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that someone
>>has to do something.
>
> Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts; does
> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
> grammatical anyways?)
'Cause it looks like one! "Nado" is unique, I believe, in *only* be
usable in this one particular construction, but it's exchangeable with
"nuzhno" which is transparently a predicate adverb zero-derived from a
predicate adjective meaning "needed"; the same sort of construction is
used in several other situations where English would make use of
auxilliaries. In "Yemu nado pet'.", the grammatical subject is the
infinitive, hence the personal pronoun appearing in dative case- "To
sing is needed for him."
I'm not sure anymore if "Yemu pet'." is grammatical by itself; it
feels to me like it needs to be a subordinate clause.
-l.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:40 am ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:35:22 +0000
Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm fairly certain it's some sort of aspect.
> "He is to be put to death"
It's surely just an alternative form for the prospective aspect. "is
to" is equivalent to (and may even be derived from) "is going
to" (unless used modally and equivalent to "must be").
The tense is clearly present. "He will be executed tomorrow" is a false
statement if he isn't, but "He is to be executed tomorrow" remains true
even if he is subsequently reprieved.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Peter Cyrus" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:44 am ((PST))
I think it's neither tense nor aspect - it's modal.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:35:22 +0000
> Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm fairly certain it's some sort of aspect.
>> "He is to be put to death"
>
> It's surely just an alternative form for the prospective aspect. "is
> to" is equivalent to (and may even be derived from) "is going
> to" (unless used modally and equivalent to "must be").
>
> The tense is clearly present. "He will be executed tomorrow" is a false
> statement if he isn't, but "He is to be executed tomorrow" remains true
> even if he is subsequently reprieved.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:48 am ((PST))
--- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]> wrote:
> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
> sing." This is a
> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
> in things like
> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think this
would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort of
thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
> -Ian
>
> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
Padraic
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:25 am ((PST))
On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
>> sing." This is a
>> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
>> in things like
>> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
>
> Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think this
> would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort of
> thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
>
>> -Ian
>>
>> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
>
> Padraic
>
One thing that strikes me about this construction (the English one) is that it
can act like an imperative, but filtered through a 3rd party. E.g. "They are to
be in bed by 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed by 8:00".
I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either futurity or
expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_ "thing which will be added";
_memorandum_ "thing which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It must be
destroyed!"
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:32 am ((PST))
From: Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:48:40PM -0600, Ian Spolarich wrote:
> While working on a conlang of mine in which there is no future or present
> and only a nonpast tense,
Wait. How does this work? What is the difference between having one tense and
having no tense at all? How are past events referred to in this language?
============================================
It works perfectly well in Indonesian: _ia nyanyi_ *depending on context* can
mean he sings/is singing/will sing/sang.
There are of course numerous little particles that can clarify----
sedang..... progressive (no intrinsic meaning)
akan, mau..... future (akan " " " ; mau 'want to'
dulu.... formerly, used to
sudah... either simple past or pres.perfect (sudah 'already')
mesti..... must (i think it's a verb in it's own right, and looks like a
loanword?)
harus... has to ( " " " " ")
pernah.... once, ever
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:37 am ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 24 January 2012 07:11, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In Russian one should say:
>>>
>>>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
>>>
>>>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that someone
>>>has to do something.
>>
>> Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts; does
>> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
>> grammatical anyways?)
>
>'Cause it looks like one! "Nado" is unique, I believe, in *only* be
>usable in this one particular construction, but it's exchangeable with
>"nuzhno" which is transparently a predicate adverb zero-derived from a
>predicate adjective meaning "needed"; the same sort of construction is
>used in several other situations where English would make use of
>auxilliaries.
Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_ doesn't
necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't have to
be of the same syntax.
But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why not
call it as a predicate adjective in this construction? Russian is
zero-copula in the present, isn't it, so _nuzhno pet'_ I would want to think
of as
0 nuzhno pet'
is necessary sing.INF
Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change the
tense. What's "he had to sing"?
One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
ordinarily. But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
don't they?
>In "Yemu nado pet'.", the grammatical subject is the
>infinitive, hence the personal pronoun appearing in dative case- "To
>sing is needed for him."
Sure, that's no trouble.
>I'm not sure anymore if "Yemu pet'." is grammatical by itself; it
>feels to me like it needs to be a subordinate clause.
Hm, that's what I'd expect. Non-finite clauses are usually subordinate, so
an infinitive as main verb in a subordinate clause is much less weird than
in a main clause.
Alex
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.10. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:41 am ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In Russian one should say:
> >
> >Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
> >
> >Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that someone
> >has to do something.
>
> Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts; does
> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
> grammatical anyways?)
>
> Alex
>
Silly me, it is a predicative. But well, although it is not too
grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.11. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:41 am ((PST))
From: Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Curious verb construction
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2012/1/24 Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > In most cases it is indeed a verb. Cf.
> > >
> > > Le hay cantar.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, "hay" -> "hay que".
> >
> > Or maybe I'm mistaken again... I haven't spoken the language for quite a
> > while.
> >
>
> No, either it is "Tiene que cantar" ("He has to sing"), which is the normal
> way to say it, or else "Ha de cantar", which is, I've been told, the same
> but more formal/literary. I think I would express "He is to sing tomorrow"
> just with "Canta mañana", "He sings tomorrow". I don't know any language
> apart from English where I wouldn't use a stupid present tense there...
Right on "ha de cantar" although I think it has definite connotations of "is
obligated to...", "is scheduled to...", "is supposed to...", whereas "tiene
que..." simply expresses the requirement.
"hay que + infinitive" usually means 'one must....' and in my experience is
always impersonal (i.e. no "he que..., has que...". etc.)
> "Hay" is actually a contraction of "ha" (which comes, indeed, from "haber")
> with the locative particle that survives in French as "y" and in Catalan as
> "hi". The full "hay" corresponds etymologically with French "il y a" and
> with Catalan "hi ha", but the Spanish have reversed the order of the two
> words.
Yes; further info: IIRC _y_ is reduced from Latin. ibi 'there' and occurs as a
free form in older writing (I seem to recall it in Cervantes and earlier) (or
it might be from hic 'this', cf. the Catalan???)
----- Original Message -----
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.12. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:06 am ((PST))
On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 24 January 2012 07:11, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In Russian one should say:
>>>>
>>>>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
>>>>
>>>>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that someone
>>>>has to do something.
>>>
>>> Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts; does
>>> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
>>> grammatical anyways?)
>>
>>'Cause it looks like one! "Nado" is unique, I believe, in *only* be
>>usable in this one particular construction, but it's exchangeable with
>>"nuzhno" which is transparently a predicate adverb zero-derived from a
>>predicate adjective meaning "needed"; the same sort of construction is
>>used in several other situations where English would make use of
>>auxilliaries.
>
> Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_ doesn't
> necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't have to
> be of the same syntax.
Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
similar.
> But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why not
> call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
and not nouns. E.g., one can say
"Yemu nuzhno moloko." -> "He needs milk." / "Milk is necessary for him."
where _nuzhno_ is clearly a predicate adjective modifying "milk"; and
one can say
"Yemu nuzhno pet'." where _nuzhno_ is modifying "to sing", or
"Yemu nado pet'." which are as close to perfectly synonymous as two
different statements in the same language ever get.
But one cannot say
*"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an adverb.
> Russian is
> zero-copula in the present, isn't it, so _nuzhno pet'_ I would want to think
> of as
> 0 nuzhno pet'
> is necessary sing.INF
And that is in fact a perfectly grammatical sentence all by itself-
"Singing is needed."
> Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change the
> tense. What's "he had to sing"?
Then they use _byt'_ as an auxilliary, just like other copular or
predicate adjective constructions.
"Yemu nado bylo pet'." -> "He needed to sing." / "To sing was needed for him."
"Yemu nado budet pet'." -> "He will need to sing." / "To sing will be
necessary for him."
> One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
> ordinarily. But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
> don't they?
Yes; they're used exclusively as predicates, or, for the neuter form,
as productive adverb derivations (one *can* use the long-form
adjectives in predicate positions as well, but never as adverbs). In
fact, the entire Russian past-tense conjugation system is the result
of re-interpreting predicate forms of archaic past participles as
regular verbs.
On 24 January 2012 10:41, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> Silly me, it is a predicative. But well, although it is not too
> grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
Oh good, that explains my unsurety quite nicely; I suppose it is the
sort of thing that one would hear in normal speech, but still be
uncomfortable about in a formal situation.
-l.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.13. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:36 am ((PST))
Or the example of Japanese.
Kare ga utau. "He sings"
(Enkai de) kare ga utau koto da. "He is to sing (at the party)"
2012/1/24 Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
> On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <
> [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 24 January 2012 07:11, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <
> [email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In Russian one should say:
> >>>>
> >>>>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
> >>>>
> >>>>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that
> someone
> >>>>has to do something.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you analyse it as an adverb? (Adverbs are generally adjuncts;
> does
> >>> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
> >>> grammatical anyways?)
> >>
> >>'Cause it looks like one! "Nado" is unique, I believe, in *only* be
> >>usable in this one particular construction, but it's exchangeable with
> >>"nuzhno" which is transparently a predicate adverb zero-derived from a
> >>predicate adjective meaning "needed"; the same sort of construction is
> >>used in several other situations where English would make use of
> >>auxilliaries.
> >
> > Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_
> doesn't
> > necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't
> have to
> > be of the same syntax.
>
> Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
> only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
> similar.
>
> > But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why
> not
> > call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
>
> Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
> for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
> It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
> and not nouns. E.g., one can say
>
> "Yemu nuzhno moloko." -> "He needs milk." / "Milk is necessary for him."
> where _nuzhno_ is clearly a predicate adjective modifying "milk"; and
> one can say
> "Yemu nuzhno pet'." where _nuzhno_ is modifying "to sing", or
> "Yemu nado pet'." which are as close to perfectly synonymous as two
> different statements in the same language ever get.
> But one cannot say
> *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an adverb.
>
> > Russian is
> > zero-copula in the present, isn't it, so _nuzhno pet'_ I would want to
> think
> > of as
> > 0 nuzhno pet'
> > is necessary sing.INF
>
> And that is in fact a perfectly grammatical sentence all by itself-
> "Singing is needed."
>
> > Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change
> the
> > tense. What's "he had to sing"?
>
> Then they use _byt'_ as an auxilliary, just like other copular or
> predicate adjective constructions.
>
> "Yemu nado bylo pet'." -> "He needed to sing." / "To sing was needed for
> him."
> "Yemu nado budet pet'." -> "He will need to sing." / "To sing will be
> necessary for him."
>
> > One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
> > ordinarily. But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
> > don't they?
>
> Yes; they're used exclusively as predicates, or, for the neuter form,
> as productive adverb derivations (one *can* use the long-form
> adjectives in predicate positions as well, but never as adverbs). In
> fact, the entire Russian past-tense conjugation system is the result
> of re-interpreting predicate forms of archaic past participles as
> regular verbs.
>
> On 24 January 2012 10:41, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Silly me, it is a predicative. But well, although it is not too
> > grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
>
> Oh good, that explains my unsurety quite nicely; I suppose it is the
> sort of thing that one would hear in normal speech, but still be
> uncomfortable about in a formal situation.
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.14. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "kechpaja" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:39 am ((PST))
But one cannot say
> *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an adverb.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can say that. However, it wouldn't be
interpreted as an adjective modifying a noun, but rather as an adverb with
implied verb and accusative noun (I think).
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.15. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:43 am ((PST))
I have seen such structures before -- with "dolzhen" (a synonym) I haven't,
though.
2012/1/24 kechpaja <[email protected]>
> But one cannot say
> > *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an
> adverb.
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can say that. However, it
> wouldn't be interpreted as an adjective modifying a noun, but rather as an
> adverb with implied verb and accusative noun (I think).
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.16. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:10 am ((PST))
On 24 January 2012 11:39, kechpaja <[email protected]> wrote:
> But one cannot say
>> *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an adverb.
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can say that. However, it wouldn't
> be interpreted as an adjective modifying a noun, but rather as an adverb with
> implied verb and accusative noun (I think).
I think that's a similar situation to "Yemu pet'."; acceptable in
speech, but formally odd. So yeah, you can say it; I should've said,
more precisely, that it's ungrammatical under the same interpretation
as "nuzhno moloko". The fact that it does mean something different
just reinforces the point- that _nado_ can only be an adverb, and not
a neuter adjective.
On 24 January 2012 11:42, Eugene Oh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have seen such structures before -- with "dolzhen" (a synonym) I haven't,
> though.
I don't think of _dolzhen_ as a synonym; it's different both in
implication and in syntax. With semantics of "should" or "is
obligated", a construction like "On dolzhen moloko" is just straight
up ungrammatical (modulo the fact that an appropriate discourse
context *could* imply a bunch of dropped elements that would fill it
to make sense), while "Yemu dolzhno moloko" or "Yemu dolzhno pet'.",
while having good syntax, just don't make any sense, hence you don't
encounter them, any more than you'd hear an English sentence like "For
me, milk should."
-l.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.17. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:11 am ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:39 PM, kechpaja <[email protected]> wrote:
> But one cannot say
> > *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an
> adverb.
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can say that. However, it
> wouldn't be interpreted as an adjective modifying a noun, but rather as an
> adverb with implied verb and accusative noun (I think).
>
Just as a native: it seems more natural if You say: Yemu nado moloka, vody,
hleba, deneg. I.e. the noun should naturally be in genitive. I think it is
because there is a sort of a reduction of an infinitive again: Yemu nado
(vypit') moloka, vody, (s'est') hleba, (poluchit') deneg. The reduced verb
is totally inobvious: You mainly guess it from the context or/and
intonation.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.18. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "kechpaja" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:15 am ((PST))
> > But one cannot say
> > > *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an
> > adverb.
> >
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can say that. However, it
> > wouldn't be interpreted as an adjective modifying a noun, but rather as an
> > adverb with implied verb and accusative noun (I think).
> >
>
> Just as a native: it seems more natural if You say: Yemu nado moloka, vody,
> hleba, deneg. I.e. the noun should naturally be in genitive. I think it is
> because there is a sort of a reduction of an infinitive again: Yemu nado
> (vypit') moloka, vody, (s'est') hleba, (poluchit') deneg. The reduced verb
> is totally inobvious: You mainly guess it from the context or/and
> intonation.
That's true. But those nouns are genitive because they are mass nouns (taking
the partitive, actually, which is identical to the genitive here), not because
of nado.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.19. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:47 am ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> > --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
> >> sing." This is a
> >> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
> >> in things like
> >> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
> >
> > Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think this
> > would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort of
> > thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
> >
> >> -Ian
> >>
> >> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
> >
> > Padraic
> >
>
> One thing that strikes me about this construction (the English one) is
> that it can act like an imperative, but filtered through a 3rd party. E.g.
> "They are to be in bed by 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed by
> 8:00".
>
Even stronger than that: "Put them to bed by 8:00." And then the imperative
isn't to the ones going to bed at all.
stevo
>
> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either futurity or
> expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_ "thing which will be
> added"; _memorandum_ "thing which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It
> must be destroyed!"
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.20. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:57 am ((PST))
Is there any particular reason why the imperative can't be used with the first
and third persons?
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na il cu barri"
On 24 Jan 2012, at 19:47, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Eric Christopherson
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>
>>> --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
>>>> sing." This is a
>>>> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
>>>> in things like
>>>> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
>>>
>>> Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think this
>>> would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort of
>>> thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
>>>
>>>> -Ian
>>>>
>>>> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
>>>
>>> Padraic
>>>
>>
>> One thing that strikes me about this construction (the English one) is
>> that it can act like an imperative, but filtered through a 3rd party. E.g.
>> "They are to be in bed by 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed by
>> 8:00".
>>
>
> Even stronger than that: "Put them to bed by 8:00." And then the imperative
> isn't to the ones going to bed at all.
>
> stevo
>
>>
>> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either futurity or
>> expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_ "thing which will be
>> added"; _memorandum_ "thing which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It
>> must be destroyed!"
>>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.21. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:01 pm ((PST))
How often do you order yourself to do something? I think often there are
separate structures to indicate a command to a first-person group (like
"Let's ..."), but a first person imperative seems odd to me -- and I'm not
sure what a third-person would entail (unless maybe the third person
referrent is pragmatically the interlocutor).
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why the imperative can't be used with the
> first and third persons?
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na il cu barri"
>
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2012, at 19:47, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> At this point, I came across the construction "I am to
> >>>> sing." This is a
> >>>> curious construction, I think, and it appears occasionally
> >>>> in things like
> >>>> "he is to speak at the benefit," or something.
> >>>
> >>> Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary supine to me. I think
> this
> >>> would answer to the first supine in Latin: venit in curia oratum sort
> of
> >>> thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those days...
> >>>
> >>>> -Ian
> >>>>
> >>>> Also--what is the technical term for this construction?
> >>>
> >>> Padraic
> >>>
> >>
> >> One thing that strikes me about this construction (the English one) is
> >> that it can act like an imperative, but filtered through a 3rd party.
> E.g.
> >> "They are to be in bed by 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed
> by
> >> 8:00".
> >>
> >
> > Even stronger than that: "Put them to bed by 8:00." And then the
> imperative
> > isn't to the ones going to bed at all.
> >
> > stevo
> >
> >>
> >> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either futurity or
> >> expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_ "thing which will be
> >> added"; _memorandum_ "thing which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_
> "It
> >> must be destroyed!"
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.22. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:05 pm ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:41:26 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Silly me, it is a predicative.
Ah, that's doubtlessly the best answer! It does its own thing. You can
never go wrong with a sui generis category -- at worst that's an error of
having a non-minimal description.
>But well, although it is not too
>grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
Interesting. More below.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:06:06 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_ doesn't
>> necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't have to
>> be of the same syntax.
>
>Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
>only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
>similar.
Indeed. In this case I do actually find it easy to imagine that _nado_ is
formally and semantically similar enough to _nuzhno_ that it has been
captured by it, and is taken by speakers as the same category, whatever that
category is.
>> But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why not
>> call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
>
>Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
>for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
>It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
>and not nouns.
You're taking for granted that _nado_ is a *modifier* of the infinitive
verb. The way I was trying to parse things, it's the *head*, and the
infinitive verb is its argument. The fact that a word takes a verb as
argument says absolutely nothing about its syntactic class ("he wanted to
sing", "he felt an urge to sing", "he was eager to sing", "he was down with
singing", need I go on).
In favour of the position that _nado_ should be the head is that (iinm)
Russian has the usual IE pattern of through-going dependent marking. You
shouldn't have to switch the main verb of a clause to infinitive 'cause you
stuck an adverb on it! Leaving out a mere adverb from a clause shouldn't
allow you to infer its elision (unlike in _yemu pet'_)!
>> Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change the
>> tense. What's "he had to sing"?
>
>Then they use _byt'_ as an auxilliary, just like other copular or
>predicate adjective constructions.
>
>"Yemu nado bylo pet'." -> "He needed to sing." / "To sing was needed for him."
>"Yemu nado budet pet'." -> "He will need to sing." / "To sing will be
>necessary for him."
That too squares an analysis where _pet'_ isn't main verb, I think -- the
fact that you can just stick another finite verb in to bear the tense (in
place of my assumed zero present copula) without adjusting anything else...
>> One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
>> ordinarily. But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
>> don't they?
>
>Yes; they're used exclusively as predicates, or, for the neuter form,
>as productive adverb derivations (one *can* use the long-form
>adjectives in predicate positions as well, but never as adverbs).
Mm, good, good. So, by its form, _nuzhno_ is either
(1) a predicative neuter adjective, or
(2) an adverb.
That beautifully fails to decide the issue. (1) is my proposed analysis
(_nuzhno pet'_ "it *is necessary* to sing"); (2) is yours.
I suppose that what we really have here is an instance where the headedness
of the construction is ambiguous, perhaps because it's being reanalysed.
(Happens all the time, of course; couldn't grammaticalise without it.). If
you want to view _pet'_ as the head I guess you say the infinitive is
serving as a debitive mood here, and then _nado_ really is just a
reinforcing adverb...
Alex
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.23. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:56 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:41:26 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Silly me, it is a predicative.
>
> Ah, that's doubtlessly the best answer! It does its own thing. You can
> never go wrong with a sui generis category -- at worst that's an error of
> having a non-minimal description.
>
Yes, indeed. For years I couldn't decide where to save the emails (if I
saved them at all) from an acquaintance of mine. He wasn't really a friend,
not family. Then one day I realized I could make a folder just for him.
Works out great.
stevo
>
> >But well, although it is not too
> >grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
>
> Interesting. More below.
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:06:06 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]
> >
> wrote:
>
> >On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <
> [email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_
> doesn't
> >> necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't
> have to
> >> be of the same syntax.
> >
> >Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
> >only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
> >similar.
>
> Indeed. In this case I do actually find it easy to imagine that _nado_ is
> formally and semantically similar enough to _nuzhno_ that it has been
> captured by it, and is taken by speakers as the same category, whatever
> that
> category is.
>
> >> But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective,
> why not
> >> call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
> >
> >Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
> >for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
> >It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
> >and not nouns.
>
> You're taking for granted that _nado_ is a *modifier* of the infinitive
> verb. The way I was trying to parse things, it's the *head*, and the
> infinitive verb is its argument. The fact that a word takes a verb as
> argument says absolutely nothing about its syntactic class ("he wanted to
> sing", "he felt an urge to sing", "he was eager to sing", "he was down with
> singing", need I go on).
>
> In favour of the position that _nado_ should be the head is that (iinm)
> Russian has the usual IE pattern of through-going dependent marking. You
> shouldn't have to switch the main verb of a clause to infinitive 'cause you
> stuck an adverb on it! Leaving out a mere adverb from a clause shouldn't
> allow you to infer its elision (unlike in _yemu pet'_)!
>
> >> Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change
> the
> >> tense. What's "he had to sing"?
> >
> >Then they use _byt'_ as an auxilliary, just like other copular or
> >predicate adjective constructions.
> >
> >"Yemu nado bylo pet'." -> "He needed to sing." / "To sing was needed for
> him."
> >"Yemu nado budet pet'." -> "He will need to sing." / "To sing will be
> >necessary for him."
>
> That too squares an analysis where _pet'_ isn't main verb, I think -- the
> fact that you can just stick another finite verb in to bear the tense (in
> place of my assumed zero present copula) without adjusting anything else...
>
> >> One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
> >> ordinarily. But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
> >> don't they?
> >
> >Yes; they're used exclusively as predicates, or, for the neuter form,
> >as productive adverb derivations (one *can* use the long-form
> >adjectives in predicate positions as well, but never as adverbs).
>
> Mm, good, good. So, by its form, _nuzhno_ is either
> (1) a predicative neuter adjective, or
> (2) an adverb.
> That beautifully fails to decide the issue. (1) is my proposed analysis
> (_nuzhno pet'_ "it *is necessary* to sing"); (2) is yours.
>
> I suppose that what we really have here is an instance where the headedness
> of the construction is ambiguous, perhaps because it's being reanalysed.
> (Happens all the time, of course; couldn't grammaticalise without it.). If
> you want to view _pet'_ as the head I guess you say the infinitive is
> serving as a debitive mood here, and then _nado_ really is just a
> reinforcing adverb...
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.24. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:40 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 1/24/12, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> One thing that strikes me about this construction (the
> English one) is that it can act like an imperative, but
> filtered through a 3rd party. E.g. "They are to be in bed by
> 8:00" basically means "Tell them to be in bed by 8:00".
Lot's of constructions can have quasi-imperative force in English, and
probably other languages as well. Depends a lot on who says it and how
they say it. And what repercussions will befall if it does not happen.
> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing either
> futurity or expectation or obligation, right? E.g.
> _addendum_ "thing which will be added"; _memorandum_ "thing
> which should be remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It must be
> destroyed!"
Indeed, though a different construction with a different meaning. The
use of the future participle here, as is clear from Cato, is a thing of
absolute necessity, while the supine simply shows purpose or reason. I
think it should be noted that, at least as I understand the w-f-w
translation of the future participle, in English it does not carry the
same force of Cato's declaration: a thing is to be added or destroyed.
No burning desire, no impending doom if not done, no sense of urgency
or necessity. Just a statement of future doing.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
1.25. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:50 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 1/24/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why
> the imperative can't be used with the first and third
> persons?
Um. No. You can give yourself an order anytime you like! You can make it
as nice and subjunctive as you please or as baldly imerpative as you need!
The *direct* imperative does not work with the third person, because the
third person is non-addressable and the imperative is a mood of direct
address. In other words, if you're in a room with Sam and you want to
order John to fetch wood, you can not directly give him the order. You can
directly order Sam to tell John. You can ask Sam. You can obliquely order
John via Sam's intermediacy.
Once John enters the room, he is available for direct address and thus
becomes the second person.
I suppose, if you directly address yourself this way, you yourself become
second person. ;) I don't think this stops anyone from giving themselves
an order in the first person. Me, I might address myself as "you", but I've
never taken this "self-referential second person" to be anything but a
form of the first person pronoun. I am i and can never be a you except to
someone outside myself if you take my meaning.
There's a goody for some conlang to develop: a set of self-referential
pronouns in various persons, numbers and genders for use with various
forms of internal dialogue, command, comment, perception, etc.
Padraic
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na il cu barri"
>
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2012, at 19:47, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Eric Christopherson
> <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- On Mon, 1/23/12, Ian Spolarich <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> At this point, I came across the
> construction "I am to
> >>>> sing." This is a
> >>>> curious construction, I think, and it
> appears occasionally
> >>>> in things like
> >>>> "he is to speak at the benefit," or
> something.
> >>>
> >>> Strange to say, but it looks like an ordinary
> supine to me. I think this
> >>> would answer to the first supine in Latin:
> venit in curia oratum sort of
> >>> thing. Dunno if they had benefits in those
> days...
> >>>
> >>>> -Ian
> >>>>
> >>>> Also--what is the technical term for this
> construction?
> >>>
> >>> Padraic
> >>>
> >>
> >> One thing that strikes me about this construction
> (the English one) is
> >> that it can act like an imperative, but filtered
> through a 3rd party. E.g.
> >> "They are to be in bed by 8:00" basically means
> "Tell them to be in bed by
> >> 8:00".
> >>
> >
> > Even stronger than that: "Put them to bed by 8:00." And
> then the imperative
> > isn't to the ones going to bed at all.
> >
> > stevo
> >
> >>
> >> I think the Latin gerund is similar in expressing
> either futurity or
> >> expectation or obligation, right? E.g. _addendum_
> "thing which will be
> >> added"; _memorandum_ "thing which should be
> remembered"; _Delenda est!_ "It
> >> must be destroyed!"
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (34)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
