Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
 


       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Language-related topics
Sander

Peculiarities of your language ...

Every language has some strange characteristics ... name them!
Sander

A major "oddness" in Dutch is its way of swearing, which is radically different from other neighbouring languages.

The Dutch say "Damn me" and they also use diseases as cursewords. This is unique in Europe. Cancer for example is a verb.

Then there's a link with Afrikaans which I recently figured out.

André ones told me that the Afrikaans(e) word for "cunt" is "kont". Which to me, as a Dutch speaker, is quite funny as "kont" in Dutch means "ass/bum" while "kut" is the word for "cunt". I could never imagine how they so radically changed the words meaning (unless there was a clear and constant shortage of women on the ships to South Africa) but I discovered that during the 17th century "kut" and "kont" were synonyms, both meaning "cunt" the only difference is that "kont" is the nasalized version of "kut". It turns out that at this time (which also was the time most of the future Boers left the Low Countries) "kont" was the more popular of the two and, just like with certain profanity today, gradually lost its "shockvalue" and at a point just refered to a persons bums. In South Afrika however the word "kut" was lost, and "kont" never lost its shock value.

Julian

Sander wrote:
I could never imagine how they so radically changed the words meaning (unless there was a clear and constant shortage of women on the ships to South Africa)


Well, they did forget how to say kitchen.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Sander wrote:
A major "oddness" in Dutch is its way of swearing, which is radically different from other neighbouring languages.

The Dutch say "Damn me" and they also use diseases as cursewords. This is unique in Europe. Cancer for example is a verb.

Then there's a link with Afrikaans which I recently figured out.

André ones told me that the Afrikaans(e) word for "cunt" is "kont". Which to me, as a Dutch speaker, is quite funny as "kont" in Dutch means "ass/bum" while "kut" is the word for "cunt". I could never imagine how they so radically changed the words meaning (unless there was a clear and constant shortage of women on the ships to South Africa) but I discovered that during the 17th century "kut" and "kont" were synonyms, both meaning "cunt" the only difference is that "kont" is the nasalized version of "kut". It turns out that at this time (which also was the time most of the future Boers left the Low Countries) "kont" was the more popular of the two and, just like with certain profanity today, gradually lost its "shockvalue" and at a point just refered to a persons bums. In South Afrika however the word "kut" was lost, and "kont" never lost its shock value.



Hm, and then there's that other horrible word which you use for "cat"...

Speaking of peculiarities, in Afrikaans we have the words "guur" and "onguur". We speak of "die weer is guur" (the weather is bad) and "hy is onguur" (he's a bad person. So the two words have roughly the same meaning (bad), although one relates only to the weather and the other only to people. But here's the funny thing. In the original Dutch, "guur" and "onguur" were antonyms, with "guur" meaning good, with the opposite being "onguur" (adding the prefix on-). So "die weer is guur" then meant "the weather is nice/good" etc. 'n Gure mens = a good/nice person. Somehow "guur" took on a negative meaning over the years.
Lazar

I don't speak Portuguese, but I was just reading about the very interesting word saudade.
Sander

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:


Hm, and then there's that other horrible word which you use for "cat"... .


That too surprises me! A male cat is called a "kater" in Dutch, a female is a "poes" (or less commonly a "kattin") but if "poes" is a swearword in Afrikaans then how do you call a female cat?
André in Zuid-Afrika

Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:


Hm, and then there's that other horrible word which you use for "cat"... .


That too surprises me! A male cat is called a "kater" in Dutch, a female is a "poes" (or less commonly a "kattin") but if "poes" is a swearword in Afrikaans then how do you call a female cat?


Simply a wyfiekat, as compared to mannetjieskat. We have kater for a male cat as well, but it has largely fallen into disuse. It still survises in the word swerkater (a bad guy).I also remember a children's song in which the words "kater kieter kat" appear (. According to my dictionary, kater also means hangover (as in the morning after)... I can't recall that I've ever heard it used in that sense, though.
Deborah

Lazar wrote:
I don't speak Portuguese, but I was just reading about the very interesting word saudade.

Interesting. I suppose every language has some word that has no one-word equivalent in other languages.

Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.
Sander

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
(. According to my dictionary, kater also means hangover (as in the morning after)... I can't recall that I've ever heard it used in that sense, though.


In Dutch "kater" means hangover as well as "dissapointment".

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:


Simply a wyfiekat, as compared to mannetjieskat. We have kater for a male cat as well, but it has largely fallen into disuse.


I wonder, is this use common concerning animals? Do you people prefer to prefix an animal with "wyfie/mannetjies" rather than use a separate word?

What are the Afrikaanse words for these animals?
(I understand if some animals have no real translations as they might not be common in SA)

English - Neutral - Male - Female - Young

(Goat) - (Geit) - (Bok) - (Geit/Sik) - (Ket/Lam)

(Bee) - (Bij) - (Dar) - (Werkster/Koningin) - (Larve/Pop)

(Chicken) - (Kip) - (Haan) - (Kloek) - (Kuiken)

(Rabit) - (Konijn) - (Rammelaar) - (Moer) - (Lamprei)

(Cattle) - (Rund) - (Stier) - (Koe) - (Kalf)

(Pig) - (Varken) - (Beer) - (Zeug) - (Big)

(Fox) - (Vos) - (Rekel) - (Moer) - (Welp)

(Horse) - (Paard) - (Hengst) - (Merrie) - (Veulen)

(Hare) - (Haas) - (Rammelaar) - (Voedster/Vooi) - (Pulsterling)
André in Zuid-Afrika

Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
(. According to my dictionary, kater also means hangover (as in the morning after)... I can't recall that I've ever heard it used in that sense, though.


In Dutch "kater" means hangover as well as "dissapointment".

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:


Simply a wyfiekat, as compared to mannetjieskat. We have kater for a male cat as well, but it has largely fallen into disuse.


I wonder, is this use common concerning animals? Do you people prefer to prefix an animal with "wyfie/mannetjies" rather than use a separate word?


Nope, usually we have different words for female and male animals.

Quote:
What are the Afrikaanse words for these animals?
(I understand if some animals have no real translations as they might not be common in SA)


English - Neutral - Male - Female - Young

(Goat) - (Geit) - (Bok) - (Geit/Sik) - (Ket/Lam) = Bok, bokram, bokooi, boklam

(Bee) - (Bij) - (Dar) - (Werkster/Koningin) - (Larve/Pop) = By, werkerby/koninginby - larwe

(Chicken) - (Kip) - (Haan) - (Kloek) - (Kuiken) = Hoender, haan, hen, kuiken

(Rabit) - (Konijn) - (Rammelaar) - (Moer) - (Lamprei) = Konyn, konynmannetjie, konynwyfie, babakonyn

(Cattle) - (Rund) - (Stier) - (Koe) - (Kalf) = Bees, bul, koei, kalf

(Pig) - (Varken) - (Beer) - (Zeug) - (Big) = Varkbeer (beer), varksog (sog)

(Fox) - (Vos) - (Rekel) - (Moer) - (Welp) = (been thinking of another animal...) mannetjiesjakkals, wyfiejakkals, jakkalswelpie

(Horse) - (Paard) - (Hengst) - (Merrie) - (Veulen) = perd, hings, merrie, vul(letjie)

(Hare) - (Haas) - (Rammelaar) - (Voedster/Vooi) - (Pulsterling) = mannetjieshaas, wyfiehaas, babahaas
Loic

Quote:
André ones told me that the Afrikaans(e) word for "cunt" is "kont". Which to me, as a Dutch speaker, is quite funny as "kont" in Dutch means "ass/bum" while "kut" is the word for "cunt". I could never imagine how they so radically changed the words meaning (unless there was a clear and constant shortage of women on the ships to South Africa) but I discovered that during the 17th century "kut" and "kont" were synonyms, both meaning "cunt" the only difference is that "kont" is the nasalized version of "kut". It turns out that at this time (which also was the time most of the future Boers left the Low Countries) "kont" was the more popular of the two and, just like with certain profanity today, gradually lost its "shockvalue" and at a point just refered to a persons bums. In South Afrika however the word "kut" was lost, and "kont" never lost its shock value.


The same way that 'fanny' has changed its meaning in America.
laura

something strange about Italian is that we repeat the object complement in the sentences where we put the complement before the verb.
e.g.: "Il libro lo trovi in camera mia" ---> "The book you find it in my room"
I think that no other language do this...

Hope that what I wrote is correct...
André in Zuid-Afrika

Whoops, almost forgot the one thing that makes Afrikaans unique amongst West Germanic languages - the double negative. This is probably the one thing that learners of Afrikaans find th most difficult to learn, and is oftern the easiest way of spotting a non-native speaker, regardless of how flawless his/her Afrikaans might otherwise be.

From Wikipedia: Both French and San origins have been suggested for double negation in Afrikaans. While double negation is still found in Low Franconian dialects in West-Flanders and in some 'isolated' villages in the center of the Netherlands (i.e. Garderen), it takes a different form, which is not found in Afrikaans (ie. ikne wil dat nie doen - I not will that not do). The -ne was the Old Franconian way to negate, but it is suggested that since it became highly non-voiced 'nie' or 'niet' was needed to complement the -ne. With time the -ne disappeared in most Low Franconian ("Dutch") dialects.

The double negative construction has been fully grammaticalized in standard Afrikaans and its proper use follows a set of fairly complex rules as the examples below (provided by Bruce Donaldson) show:

Ek het nie geweet dat hy sou kom nie = Eng. I didn't know that he would be coming.

Ek het geweet dat hy nie sou kom nie = Eng. I knew that he wouldn't be coming.

Ek het nie geweet dat hy nie sou kom nie = Eng. I didn't know that he wouldn't be coming.

Hy sal nie kom nie, want hy is siek = Eng. He won't be coming because he is sick.

Dis (=Dit is) nie so moeilik om Afrikaans te leer nie = Eng. It's not so difficult to learn Afrikaans.

One must note, however, that certain words in Afrikaans arise due to grammar. For example 'moet nie' which literally means 'must not' usually becomes 'moenie'. Although one does not have to write or say it like this, virtually all Afrikaans speakers will change the two words to moenie.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans_grammar"
Benjamin [inactive]

Interestingly, where I live, double negatives are very common in the regional variation of English. However, it is not generally accepted as 'correct' and people who use it are generally perceived as uneducated, unfortunately.

Examples:

I haven't got no money = I haven't got any money / I have no money
I didn't never do that = I didn't do that / I never did that
I haven't done nothing = I haven't done anything / I've done nothing
Sander

Middle Dutch and even early modern Dutch had the double negative, it is one of the few signs of truly complex grammar that remains in Afrikaans. Traditionally all Old Germanic language had a double negative, Afrikaans is the last of its kind


Anothing intersting thing about Dutch (and quite possibly Afrikaans as wel) is that it has a postive form of "not".

In English you can say "I did not give that book" and "I did give that book" but in Dutch you say "Ik heb je dat boek wel gegeven". "Wel" being the positive form of "not".
Daniel

Tagalog has a peculiarity in that if you use the word for 'this', 'that' or 'that over there' in front of the noun then you must repeat it after it:

Itong mesang ito. = This table. (literally: This table this)
Iyong paaralang iyon. = That school over there. (literally: That school that over there)
Iyang librong iyan. = That book. (literally: That book that)

If you don't use the determiner before the noun then use "ang" in front and place the determiner after it:

Ang mesang ito. = This table.
Ang paaralang iyon. = That school over there.
Ang librong iyan. = That book.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Benjamin wrote:
Interestingly, where I live, double negatives are very common in the regional variation of English. However, it is not generally accepted as 'correct' and people who use it are generally perceived as uneducated, unfortunately.

Examples:

I haven't got no money = I haven't got any money / I have no money
I didn't never do that = I didn't do that / I never did that
I haven't done nothing = I haven't done anything / I've done nothing


You often hear that in SA English as well, but it's considered as slang. It also happens in Afrikaans eg. Niemand vertel my nooit niks nie=nobody never tells me nothing. The thing is that sentences like these actually mean the opposite of what the person is trying to say.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Sander wrote:
Middle Dutch and even early modern Dutch had the double negative, it is one of the few signs of truly complex grammar that remains in Afrikaans. Traditionally all Old Germanic language had a double negative, Afrikaans is the last of its kind


Anothing intersting thing about Dutch (and quite possibly Afrikaans as wel) is that it has a postive form of "not".

In English you can say "I did not give that book" and "I did give that book" but in Dutch you say "Ik heb je dat boek wel gegeven". "Wel" being the positive form of "not".


We have that too (Ek het wel vir jou die boek gegee).
Deborah

One feature of Italian that isn't shared by other romance languages (at least, not by French and Italian, the only other romance languages I'm familiar with) is the use of the definite article with the possessive article:

la sua tavola = her table
i miei amici = my friends

However, when speaking of members of your own family, you drop the definite article:

mia sorella = my sister

Are there any other exceptions? (Laura, Patriccke, Tiffany, Daniel, anyone?)
Benjamin [inactive]

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
You often hear that in SA English as well, but it's considered as slang. It also happens in Afrikaans eg. Niemand vertel my nooit niks nie=nobody never tells me nothing. The thing is that sentences like these actually mean the opposite of what the person is trying to say.

It's often difficult to work out exactly what they mean, as well. Like, I know a song with the line 'no-one never shot no-one, I swear they do it just for fun' — quite difficult to understand. Was someone shot or not?
fab

Quote:
One feature of Italian that isn't shared by other romance languages (at least, not by French and Italian, the only other romance languages I'm familiar with) is the use of the definite article with the possessive article:

la sua tavola = her table
i miei amici = my friends




In Spanish it is not the case :
IT "la sua tavola" would be SP "su mesa" and FR "Sa table".
IT "i miei amici" would be SP "mis amigos" and FR "mes amis".

But in Catalan yes. "la seva mesa" / "els meus amics" (please catalophones can correct if wrong.
patriccke

In Italian other determinants can be combined with the possessive:
questa sua abitudine = this habit "that (s)he has"
un mio amico = a friend of mine

fab wrote:
But in Catalan yes. "la seva taula" / "els meus amics" (please catalophones can correct if wrong.

Yaka demander

Exception: llur(s) = their => Llur taula, llurs amics

Deborah wrote:
However, when speaking of members of your own family, you drop the definite article:

mia sorella = my sister

Only with the singular: mia sorella => le mie sorelle

In Catalan too, there is a particularity when speaking about members of your family, a second form of possessive adjectives, without article:
mon, ton, son pare = el meu, el teu, el seu pare
ma, ta, sa mare = la meva, la teva, la seva mare
mos, tos, sos germans = els meus, els teus, els seus germans
mes, tes, ses germans = les meves, les teves, les seves cosines

By the way: meva, teva, ..., seves
can also be said: meua, teua, ..., seues
Deborah

fab wrote:
Quote:
One feature of Italian that isn't shared by other romance languages (at least, not by French and Italian, the only other romance languages I'm familiar with) is the use of the definite article with the possessive article:

la sua tavola = her table
i miei amici = my friends




In Spanish it is not the case :

Actually, I knew that and meant to include Spanish, but it somehow got away. So thanks for the information.
patriccke

Deborah wrote:
One feature of Italian that isn't shared by other romance languages (at least, not by French and Italian, the only other romance languages I'm familiar with) is the use of the definite article with the possessive article:

I rather guess you meant "Spanish" and wrote "Italian". I can confirm this feature of Italian is shared by Italian
patriccke

In Dutch I always find it funny when they say e.g. een of vijf, literally '"one or five" to say "four or five".

I find it interesting to be able to drop the verb "gaan" (to go) when it is unnecessary after a modal verb:
Ik will weg = I want to go away
Ik moet naar het station = I have to go to the station

Or "geworden" in the past passive voice:
Het huis is geverft = the house has been built.
The complete sentence "is geverft geworden" would sound so bad!

A "graphic detail" I like about Dutch is position the capital letter on the second word of a sentence when the first one is cut: 's Avonds ga ik graag uit. Or the capital IJ, since "ij" is somehow considered as a single letter: IJzer (a river in Belgium)
patriccke

My favourite feature in Catalan is definitely the "passat perifrŕstic". A past tense formed with "to go".

Em va trucar, literally "(s)he goes call me" doesn't mean "(s)he's going to call me" but "(s)he called me"!

The funny thing about it is that it comes from the way medieval trobadors used to tell stories in their songs. They were often using the future to relate past events. It remained in the language and now it is used much more often than the preterite (in Northern Catalonia the preterite has even disappeared, I personally don't know how to conjugate it).

A detail I like about Catalan graphy: the point to distinguish between double L and LL: L·L (note the position s not that of a full stop).
Les il·luminacions nadalenques = the lights of christmas

Such a pity the double LL is written TLL. "LL·LL" would be nice!
Sander

patriccke wrote:
A "graphic detail" I like about Dutch is position the capital letter on the second word of a sentence when the first one is cut: 's Avonds ga ik graag uit. Or the capital IJ, since "ij" is somehow considered as a single letter: IJzer (a river in Belgium)


The "ij" is a separate letter, it's eccentially the Dutch version of the "y" which was written "˙".

The " 's Avonds" thing ... " 's" actually means "des" (gentive of "de") and because you can't start a sentence with a " ' " followed by a capital ...
Julian

Deborah wrote:
One feature of Italian that isn't shared by other romance languages (at least, not by French and Spanish, the only other romance languages I'm familiar with) is the use of the definite article with the possessive article:

la sua tavola = her table
i miei amici = my friends

However, when speaking of members of your own family, you drop the definite article:

mia sorella = my sister

Are there any other exceptions? (Laura, Patriccke, Tiffany, Daniel, anyone?)


The definite article is used with the possessive pronoun in Occitan.

    la siá / sieuna taula (her table)
    los mieus amics (my friends)


It's perfectly acceptable to use this form for family members (lo mieu paire, la tiá / tieuna maire, lo lor cosin, etc.) but I never really understood why it's necessary when you can just use the possessive adjective form:

    mon, ton, son, nňstre, vňstre, lor paire
    ma, ta, sa, nňstra, vňstra, lor maire
    mos, tos, sos, nňstres, vňstres, lors fraires
    mas, tas, sas, nňstras, vňstras, lors sňrres
Deborah

So you use the definite article with the possessive in Italian, Occitan and Catalan, but not in French and Spanish? How about Portueguese and Romanian? Maybe not using the definite article is in the minority.
Deborah

Speaking of possessives, in Arabic the possessive is formed simply by placing 2 nouns one after the other. The first is the possessor and the second is the possessed. No changes in the form of the words is needed.

al bint = the daughter

al bint Ali = Ali's daughter
patriccke

Bint Ali. You have to remove the article. The possessor works as a determinant.

Example with a common noun:
الباب (al ba:b) = the door
الغرفة (al ghurfa) = the room
باب الغرفة (ba:b al ghurfa) = the door of the room

In Breton it works the same way: deur an ti (the door of the house)

This construction exists in a some French toponyms like Bourg-la-Reine.
Deborah

patriccke wrote:
Bint Ali. You have to remove the article. The possessor works as a determinant.

Oops! Well, my brief foray into Arabic was a long time ago, that's my excuse. patriccke, how would you say "the big door of the room" and "Ali's beautiful daughter"? I don't recall where the adjective goes, but I think I recall there being some room for interpretation as to which noun the adjective would modify. But maybe I'm getting that confused with something else.
patriccke

I would say
باب الكبير الغرفة (ba:b al kabi:r al ghurfa)
while the door of the big room would be
باب الغرفة الكبيرة (ba:b al ghurfa l kabi:ra).

I would translate Hassan's beautiful daughter (I changed his name because I don't know which vowels are long in "Ali") as
بنت جميلة حسن (bint jami:la hasan)

But I may be wrong
Deborah

I have a vague impression that the adjective is supposed to come after the construct, which could cause confusion. But I may be totally wrong. Unfortunately, I can't take time to look it up now, since I'm at work.
patriccke

Yes, you're perfectly right. My book says that the noun and the possessor cannot be separated. So the first sentence should be:
باب الغرفة الكبير (ba:b al ghurfa l kabi:r)

Indeed here we can understand that what is big is the door thanks to the gender, but if both nouns are of the same gender there may be a confusion.

I guess the last sentence should then be:
بنت حسن جميلة (bint hasan jami:la)?
In that case, how to make the difference with the nominal sentence Hassan's daughter is beautiful???

Too complicated for my little brain
Deborah

patriccke wrote:
In that case, how to make the difference with the nominal sentence Hassan's daughter is beautiful???

Too complicated for my little brain

As I understand it, since Hassan's daughter has a determinant, the adjective in "Hassan's beautiful daugher" should be preceeded by "al".

bint hasan al jami:la

(Because, after all, "the beautiful daughter" would be "al bint al jami:la".)

To say "Hassan's daughter is beautiful", you omit the "al":

bint hasan jami:la

"The daughter is beautiful" would be:

al bint jami:la

But the part I don't recall at all is how you would convey that both Hassan and his daughter are beautiful!
patriccke

Deborah wrote:
As I understand it, since Hassan's daughter has a determinant, the adjective in "Hassan's beautiful daugher" should be preceeded by "al".

bint hasan al jami:la

Yes, that makes sense

Deborah wrote:
But the part I don't recall at all is how you would convey that both Hassan and his daughter are beautiful!

Well, er... Hassan isn't that beautiful after all!
Deborah

patriccke wrote:
Deborah wrote:
But the part I don't recall at all is how you would convey that both Hassan and his daughter are beautiful!

Well, er... Hassan isn't that beautiful after all!

Oh, of course! Thanks, patriccke -- langcafé is such a useful learning tool, isn't it?
patriccke

Yes indeed! No question ever remains unanswered (whether the answer is useful or not doesn't matter)

I like this kind of contructions in English (I always try and use them in French when I come back from an English-speaking country, of course it doesn't work!):
I was given a tip, He is said to be generous, I was told to keep the secret...
Daniel

Another peculiarity in Tagalog concerning the possessives is that there are always two forms of the possessives. For example, there are two words for "my" depending on whether you want the possessed noun to be the focus of the sentence or not:

aking bahay = my house (here, the word akin goes before the noun)
bahay ko = my house (here, the word ko goes after the noun)

The first example is the focus of the sentence whereas the last example is the non-focus. There is a rule that states that when the same pronoun is used in a sentence, the two different forms are used:

Pumunta ang aking ina sa bahay ko. - My mother went to my house.

So it is incorrect to say: Pumunta ang ina ko sa bahay ko.
It is also incorrect to say: Pumunta ang aking ina sa aking bahay.

In Scottish Gaelic, there are also two forms of the possessives: of which, one form is used with parts of the body and the other is used with anything.

an taigh agam = my house (the house at-me)
mo bheul = my mouth

The word agam in the first example is a conjugated form of the preposition 'at' plus 'me'.

an taigh agad = your house (the house at-you)
an taigh aige = his house (the house at-him) and so on.
Fredrik

Very interesting to see how very distantly related languages can share features.

In Norwegian we have tones (two in our case), just like many African and Asian languages. But tonal languages are very uncommon in Europe, only found in Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Serbian, Croatian, and Limburgs.
The two tones often differentiates between words with different meanings:
tone 1 - fryser /'fryser/ = freezes
tone 2 - fryser /'fry-'ser/ = freezer

Another strange feature of Norwegian phonology:
Quote:
The word ja "yes" is sometimes pronounced with inhaled breath (pulmonic ingressive) in Norwegian — and this can be rather confusing for foreigners.


Similar to its Scandinavian neighbour languages, Norwegian places the definite article behind the noun, in all thre genders:
artikkelen = the article
meninga = the meaning
systemet = the system

This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table
den lille hunden min = the little dog the mine = my little dog
Normal "European" determination can also be used in Norwegian:
min lille hund = my little dog
but this sounds Danish / posh / poetical.

And just as in German, Nynorsk Norwegian uses gender-specific pronouns:
Kor er boka? Har du sett henne?. = Where is the book? Have you seen her?


Deborah wrote:
Quote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.

Perhaps an outsider can help you guys with a very distinct feature of English: The absence of "clear", undiphtongized vowels, something which makes any English-language pronounciation guide to any other foreign languages rather cumbersome.
Daniel

[quote="Fredrik"]Another strange feature of Norwegian phonology:
Quote:
The word ja "yes" is sometimes pronounced with inhaled breath (pulmonic ingressive) in Norwegian — and this can be rather confusing for foreigners.


Yes, there are some languages (although, very few) in the world that are pulmonic ingressive, such as Sindhi, a language of India.

Fredrik wrote:
This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table
den lille hunden min = the little dog the mine = my little dog
Normal "European" determination can also be used in Norwegian:
min lille hund = my little dog
but this sounds Danish / posh / poetical.


This also occurs in Scottish Gaelic except that it the determiners are used with the definite articles:

an bord seo = this table [literally: the table this]
am balach siud = that boy over there [literally: the boy that over there]
a' bho sin = that cow [literally: the cow that]

Tagalog is even stranger because it uses the same determiner twice.

Frederik wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Quote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.

Perhaps an outsider can help you guys with a very distinct feature of English: The absence of "clear", undiphtongized vowels, something which makes any English-language pronounciation guide to any other foreign languages rather cumbersome.


I can think of a few English peculiarities:

No other languages form their question like the English - Do you do that?

Does he know how to write?
Don't they have it?

And these too:

He did see her.
We did do this.

English does have many diphthongs. Even if a word is composed of just one vowel letter, the speaker tends to pronounce it as if it is a diphthong. Although, not in Scotland.
Irrintzi

The basque is considering isolate, but some similarities can be observed with other isolate as japanese, Turkish, Native-American languages:

exemple:

Saldu(english Sold)
GORA (serbo-croatian GORE): at the top.
BI (latin BIS): Two.
EGUN (sanscrit AHAN): day.
ERDI (sanscrit ARDHA), half.
LAPUR (serbo-croatian LOPOV), thief .
ETCHE (greek OIKIA), house.
ELKAR (dutch, ELKAAR, ELKANDER): together, mutually
TCHAR, TXAR (armenian TCHAR): bad
HIRU (hungarian HAROM; finland KOLME), three.
HILTZE (hungarian HALNI; turkish EULMEK; finland KUOLLA), to die.
HORA (finland KOIRA), dog.
ATE (hungarian AJTO), door.
AITA (hungarian ATYA), door.
BOST (turkish BECH; finlandais VIISI), bost.
BESTE (turkish BACHKA), other.
NORA (turkish NEREYE), where, (lat. QUO).
BARATZE (turkish BAKHTCHE): garden.
DIRA (turkish DIRLER): they are.
TOKI (japonais TOKOR): location
NAGUSI (japanese NUSHI), lord.
HORI (japanese KORE), this.
HAGUIN (japanese HA): tooth.
GARE (basque sp. GERA; japanese ARU), we are.
ZARE (basque sp. ZERA; japanese ARU), you are.

Basque: MUTIKO ( M from P latin) ETA (or TA) MIRABEARI.
Japanese: MUSUKO TO MUSUME NI: To the boys and to the girls.
EGUN, day (to EG-UN), compare to the turc GUN, day; in ESKAR, thanks (to ESK-AR), compare to the arabic CHUKR, thanks, and in BAKARIK (to BAT-GARIK), only, compare to the japanese BAKARI, only, juste.

the site:
http://jmglaria.club.fr/PBasque-langue-3.htm
Deborah

Deborah wrote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.

I assumed people would know I was joking. Oh, well...
greg in noord-frankrijk

Deborah wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.

I assumed people would know I was joking. Oh, well...



Zhuh l'awhway pawhwyay ! Je l'aurais parié !
Deborah

greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Zhuh l'awhway pawhwyay ! Je l'aurais parié !

I knew I could count on you, with your Parisian sophistication...
greg in noord-frankrijk

Argh !
Walker

Fredrik wrote:
This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table


Ew, that exists in some Swedish dialects... it's det här bordet!

Särskrivning is a mistake in written Swedish that I can't stand. It's when composite words are written in two or more words. It looks extremely uneducated and ugly. Composite words is something you should know when you're in school but särskriving (apart writing) is still a rather common phenomenon. Sometimes the meaning changes into something totally different when you don't put words together like you're supposed to.

Here's a rather extreme example I found on wikipedia.

Brunhĺrig sjuksköterska = Brown-haired nurse

Brun hĺrig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse
Pauline

Walker wrote:
Brunhĺrig sjuksköterska = Brown-haired nurse

Brun hĺrig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse


I don't speak swedish and didn't hear it, but I'm surprised that there aren't some declensions as adjective suffixes. This would prevent the change of significance as well.

For example, if it would be: brunhĺrige sjuksköterska / brun hĺrige sjuksköterska then it would be evidently not a brown, hairy but brown-haired nurse But, if it would be sjuke sköterska, this would make it to be more like sick nurse, so this words must remain always one word: there's not an alternative

I'm wondering why's there not adjective agreement. Is sjuksköterska neutral, like in german Mädchen?
Walker

Pauline wrote:
Walker wrote:
Brunhĺrig sjuksköterska = Brown-haired nurse

Brun hĺrig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse


I don't speak swedish and didn't hear it, but I'm surprised that there aren't some declensions as adjective suffixes. This would prevent the change of significance as well.

For example, if it would be: brunhĺrige sjuksköterska / brun hĺrige sjuksköterska then it would be evidently not a brown, hairy but brown-haired nurse But, if it would be sjuke sköterska, this would make it to be more like sick nurse, so this words must remain always one word: there's not an alternative


Actually, brunhĺrige and hĺrige are already taken: when you're talking about a brown-haired or hairy male and involve the definite article you get the e at the end. "The brown-haired man" is den brunhĺrige mannen. Furthermore, "the brown-haired woman" is den brunhĺriga kvinnan. More examples:

En hĺrig man - a hairy man. Man is an utrum-word i.e. the indefinite article is en.

Ett hĺrigt barn - a hairy child. Barn is a neutrum-word i.e. the indefinite article is ett, which affects the adjective, as you can see.

In plural the adjective is the same regardless of utrum, neutrum and in/definite article:

(De) hĺriga män(nen) - (the) hairy men. (De) hĺriga barn(en) - (the) hairy children.

Pauline wrote:
I'm wondering why's there not adjective agreement. Is sjuksköterska neutral, like in german Mädchen?


The -erska part implies that it's a female you're talking about. The masculine ending is -are. However, male nurses are usually called sjuksköterska as well. There was no adjective agreement because there was no article. Had there been one...

The brown-haired nurse - den brunhĺriga sjuksköterskan.

Am I making any sense?

Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?
Pauline

Walker wrote:
Am I making any sense?

Yes thanks for explaining, I think that I understand it well.

So the m/f words (utrum) indefinite article is en and for neutral words ett This is exactly like ducth definite articles , where there's de and het although this is definite (not indef) the concept it's the same one.

Quote:
Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?

But, in your reply it's evident that there are suffixes, but that in the example there wasn't. It's because it wasn't after the definite article, no?

I don't undertsand why was it brunharig sjuksköterska After I've read your explication I would expect: brunhariga. Is this because it didn't have the definite article i.e. den brunhariga sj.....

Then it's bit the inverse of german in which the adjective agreement is lesser after the def article!!! swedish doesn't like to be the same as german!!! in dutch, the suffix remain the same if it's with the both (either) of article, but anyway dutch is *much* less complicated grammar than german. How comlicated is swedish? (I don't want to learn it, but it's inetresting to learn somethings)
Pauline

LOL!! I've read your reply agian and this time with more concentration so I've seen that you've answered the questions i've posed in my preceding message. Silly me, I don't pay sufficient attention!!!!
Bye.
Walker

Pauline wrote:
Walker wrote:
Am I making any sense?

Yes thanks for explaining, I think that I understand it well.

So the m/f words (utrum) indefinite article is en and for neutral words ett This is exactly like ducth definite articles , where there's de and het although this is definite (not indef) the concept it's the same one.


You're most welcome!

Pauline wrote:
Walker wrote:
Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?

But, in your reply it's evident that there are suffixes, but that in the example there wasn't. It's because it wasn't after the definite article, no?


Correct, and you're right, there are suffixes. I just meant that it's easier to put brun and hĺrig together than to write brunhĺrige or brun hĺrige like you suggested.

Quote:
I don't undertsand why was it brunharig sjuksköterska After I've read your explication I would expect: brunhariga. Is this because it didn't have the definite article i.e. den brunhariga sj.....


Correct again!

Quote:
Then it's bit the inverse of german in which the adjective agreement is lesser after the def article!!! swedish doesn't like to be the same as german!!!


Damn straight!

Quote:
in dutch, the suffix remain the same if it's with the both (either) of article, but anyway dutch is *much* less complicated grammar than german. How comlicated is swedish? (I don't want to learn it, but it's inetresting to learn somethings)


You don't? Swedish is not very complicated. We do inflect adjectives, as you've seen, but we don't conjugate verbs according to personal pronoun.

Pauline wrote:
LOL!! I've read your reply agian and this time with more concentration so I've seen that you've answered the questions i've posed in my preceding message. Silly me, I don't pay sufficient attention!!!!
Bye.


Don't worry about it. If you have more questions just throw them my way.
Porthos

The verb "to do" is used quite a bit in English, while you won't find this in any other languages. In fact, I've never encountered another language that does.

Do you speak English?
Hablas Ingles?
Spreekt u Engels?
Llatai

English has the peculiarity of being the only IE language without grammatical gender. It also lost its formal pronouns and its plural "you" form which used to be "ye". That's why one has to add qualifiers to the word you when meaning a collective. In the US, examples are you all or y'all, yous, yinz (Pittsburgh PA) yous guys etc.
Andlit

Quote:
English has the peculiarity of being the only IE language without grammatical gender. It also lost its formal pronouns and its plural "you" form which used to be "ye". That's why one has to add qualifiers to the word you when meaning a collective. In the US, examples are you all or y'all, yous, yinz (Pittsburgh PA) yous guys etc.


I think Afrikaans is also without gender. Where I come from, if we are talking to a group of people we tend to say 'you lot'.
Liz

Hungarian is completely devoid of grammatical gender. What's more, there is no distinction of and he and she - the elegant and convenient umbrella term ő suffices. We use az when referring to inanimate (thus gender-neutral) beings, though. So, we have a hard time getting those gender pronouns right when speaking other languages.

However, I know that no-one cares... (maybe Bashar)
Loic

Liz wrote:

However, I know that no-one cares... (maybe Bashar)


Of course, I care. With an air of philosophical detatchment, of course.
Liz

loic wrote:
Of course, I care. With an air of philosophical detatchment, of course.

***my emphasis***

How so???
Walker

Quote:
The Swedish fricatives /ɕ/ and /ɧ/ are often considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of Swedish pronunciation for foreign students. The combination of two such similar and fairly unique sounds as well as the large variety of partly overlapping allophones often presents difficulties for non-natives in telling the two apart. The existence of a third sibilant in the form of /s/ tends to confuse matters even more, and in some cases realizations that are labiodental can also be confused with /f/. /ɕ/ is in most dialects realized as [ɕ] and occasionally [ç], in this case almost identical to the German "ich"-sound. The exception is Finland Swedish, where the phoneme is affricated into [t͡ɕ] or [t͡ʃ].

The Swedish phoneme /ɧ/ (the "sje-sound" or voiceless palatal-velar fricative) and its allegedly double places of articulation is a difficult and complex issue that is still debated among phoneticians.[1] Though the acoustic properties of its [ɧ] allophones are fairly similar, the realizations can vary considerably according to geography, social status, age, gender as well as social context and are notoriously difficult to describe and transcribe accurately. Most common are various [ɧ]-like sounds, with [ʂ] occurring mainly in northern Sweden and [ɕ] in Finland. A voiceless uvular fricative, [χ], can sometimes be used in the varieties influenced by major immigrant languages like Arabic and Kurdish. The different realizations can be divided roughly into the following categories:

"Dark sounds" - [ɧ], and [x], most commonly used in the Southern Swedish Standard. Some of the varieties specific, but not exclusive, to areas with large percentage of immigrant population very commonly realize the phoneme as a voiceless uvular fricative [χ].
"Light sounds" - [ʂ], used in the northern varieties and [ʃ], and [ɕ] (or something in between) in Finland Swedish.
Combination of "light" and "dark" - darker sounds are used as morpheme initials preceding stressed vowels (sjuk, station; "sick", "station"), while the lighter sounds are used before unstressed vowels and at the end of morphemes (bagage, dusch; "baggage", "shower").


I don't know how much you can make out of this mumbo jumbo, but for the record, I use the "combination of light and dark". It's funny sometimes when non-natives try to pronounce the "darker sounds" as in "sjuksköterska", for example.
Irrintzi

Fredrik wrote:
Very interesting to see how very distantly related languages can share features.

In Norwegian we have tones (two in our case), just like many African and Asian languages. But tonal languages are very uncommon in Europe, only found in Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Serbian, Croatian, and Limburgs.
The two tones often differentiates between words with different meanings:
tone 1 - fryser /'fryser/ = freezes
tone 2 - fryser /'fry-'ser/ = freezer



I have nothing against you but I think that you make a mistake, many european languages have this particularity:
Spanish with Tonic Accents:
está (to be, estar)
ésta (this one)...

Also in Italian, Portuguese, or Occitan...
Walker

Irrintzi wrote:
Fredrik wrote:
Very interesting to see how very distantly related languages can share features.

In Norwegian we have tones (two in our case), just like many African and Asian languages. But tonal languages are very uncommon in Europe, only found in Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Serbian, Croatian, and Limburgs.
The two tones often differentiates between words with different meanings:
tone 1 - fryser /'fryser/ = freezes
tone 2 - fryser /'fry-'ser/ = freezer



I have nothing against you but I think that you make a mistake, many european languages have this particularity:
Spanish with Tonic Accents:
está (to be, estar)
ésta (this one)...

Also in Italian, Portuguese, or Occitan...


The examples you gave here, aren't they words with the stress put on different vowels?
Irrintzi

Walker wrote:


The examples you gave here, aren't they words with the stress put on different vowels?


What are the differences between tones and "stress vowels"?
Walker

Irrintzi wrote:
Walker wrote:


The examples you gave here, aren't they words with the stress put on different vowels?


What are the differences between tones and "stress vowels"?


Stress is when you put stress on one of two or more syllables (if I remember correctly there's also something called secondary stress). Check out these two words in Swedish:

Anden - the [wild] duck

Anden - the spirit

The stress is put on the 'a' in both words, but the tone is different. Tone is more subtle than stress. If I said anden and anden to you, you probably wouldn't hear any difference (since you're not a native-speaker of Swedish, or a speaker of Swedish at all for that matter).

Think of tone as a musical note that can make subtle changes, and think of stress as BANG!!
Daniel

Walker wrote:
Irrintzi wrote:
Walker wrote:


The examples you gave here, aren't they words with the stress put on different vowels?


What are the differences between tones and "stress vowels"?


Stress is when you put stress on one of two or more syllables (if I remember correctly there's also something called secondary stress). Check out these two words in Swedish:

Anden - the [wild] duck

Anden - the spirit

The stress is put on the 'a' in both words, but the tone is different. Tone is more subtle than stress. If I said anden and anden to you, you probably wouldn't hear any difference (since you're not a native-speaker of Swedish, or a speaker of Swedish at all for that matter).

Think of tone as a musical note that can make subtle changes, and think of stress as BANG!!


This tone can also be known as pitch accent. A subtle change of the pitch can alter the meaning of the word. Non-native Swedish speakers find it hard to hear it since they're not attuned to this sort of thing.
Llatai

Liz wrote:
Hungarian is completely devoid of grammatical gender. What's more, there is no distinction of and he and she - the elegant and convenient umbrella term ő suffices. We use az when referring to inanimate (thus gender-neutral) beings, though. So, we have a hard time getting those gender pronouns right when speaking other languages.


But Hungarian is not an IE language.
Llatai

Welsh has a different (from English at least) way of expressing possession. If you buy a new car, instead of saying I have a new car as you would in English, you'd say a new car is with me. When you have a headache, or are expressing the fact that you're feeling an emotion such as fear for example, you say there is a headache on me or there is fear on me instead of saying I'm afraid or I have a headache. One doesn't express it as though one is identified with the state, but that such a state is separate from you and that you are affected temporarily by it.

I was curious if there are other languages which have similar forms and which ones they are.
Liz

Llatai wrote:
But Hungarian is not an IE language.

No, it isn't and I didn't say it was. However, what I wrote is still a peculiarity.
Benjamin [inactive]

It isn't really accurate to say that English has 'no grammatical gender'. It has three grammatical genders — masculine, feminine and neuter, in the form of 'he', 'she', and 'it'. What Llatai probably means is that articles and adjectives do not change in English according to gender, and that inanimate objects are usually neuter, humans (except babies?) can only ever be either masculine or feminine, whilst other animals are masculine/feminine when the biological gender is known, but neuter when it isn't. However, there are some exceptions to this, and this is not the case in all dialects.
Daniel

Benjamin wrote:
It isn't really accurate to say that English has 'no grammatical gender'. It has three grammatical genders — masculine, feminine and neuter, in the form of 'he', 'she', and 'it'. What Llatai probably means is that articles and adjectives do not change in English according to gender, and that inanimate objects are usually neuter, humans (except babies?) can only ever be either masculine or feminine, whilst other animals are masculine/feminine when the biological gender is known, but neuter when it isn't. However, there are some exceptions to this, and this is not the case in all dialects.


I've heard people frequently use "she" when referring to a ship. I've even heard men who refer to their cars (ie. "She's a real beauty").
Liz

Benjamin wrote:
It isn't really accurate to say that English has 'no grammatical gender'.

That's true.

Daniel wrote:
I've heard people frequently use "she" when referring to a ship. I've even heard men who refer to their cars (ie. "She's a real beauty").

I find it funny when people refer to babies as "it". I've heard someone ask the newborn baby's parents: "Is it a he or a she?"
Daniel

Llatai wrote:
Welsh has a different (from English at least) way of expressing possession. If you buy a new car, instead of saying I have a new car as you would in English, you'd say a new car is with me. When you have a headache, or are expressing the fact that you're feeling an emotion such as fear for example, you say there is a headache on me or there is fear on me instead of saying I'm afraid or I have a headache. One doesn't express it as though one is identified with the state, but that such a state is separate from you and that you are affected temporarily by it.

I was curious if there are other languages which have similar forms and which ones they are.


The same in Scottish Gaelic (as well as the other two "forms" of Gaelic: Manx and Irish).

Also in Welsh, if the direct object of the verb happens to be a personal pronoun, it has to split and then wrap around the verb. That's not it. The initial consonant of the verb has to undergo mutation depending on the personal pronoun.

Maen nhw'n darllen y llyfr. - They read/are reading the book.
But: Maen nhw'n ei ddarllen e. - They read/are reading it.

Dw i'n ei gweld hi. - I see her.
Maen nhw'n fy nghlywed i. - They hear me.
Mae'r athro'n ein clywed ni. - The teacher hears us.

Scottish Gaelic basically has two verbs for "to be". A bit like Spanish, but Scottish Gaelic uses them in different ways. In addition, it uses different constructions to express sentences with the "to be" depending on whether the predicate is definite or indefinite or whether the subject is a noun or a personal pronoun. Complicated? Look:

1. Tha mi gu math. - I am fine. (lit. Am I [adv. art.] good)
2. Is mise Daniel. - I am Daniel. (lit. Am I Daniel)
3. Is mise an sgrěobhaiche. - I am the writer. (lit. Am I the writer)
4. 'S e dotair a tha annam. - I am a doctor. (lit. It is a doctor that is in me)
5. Chan e důthaich bheag a tha ann an Ruis. - Russia is not a small country. (lit. Not is a country small that is in the Russia)
6. Tha an t-acras orm. - I am hungry. (lit. There is the hunger on-me)

Notes on above:
1. The predicate is an adjective and (like Spanish "estar" it's a temporary state/condition) so the form "tha mi" is used.
2. The predicate is factual (and permanent) so "is mise" is used. (like Spanish "ser")
3. "An sgrěobhaiche" has the definite article "an" (=the) so "is mise" has to be used, regardless of whether the job is temporary or permanent.
4. Different construction: "'S e" is a form of the 'temporary state' to be verb. Because "dotair" is indefinite so this form must be used, regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent.
5. Although the temporary form of the verb is used in this type of construction, the subject is definite ("Ruis" has the definite article "an" in front).
6. Another different construction: this time "tha" form is used. Although, being hungry is a temporary state, the "tha" form is used to translate "there is" when the subject is incorporated with the preposition "air" (=on): ie. orm (on-me), ort (on-you), air (on-him), etc. to show temporary conditions!
Daniel

Liz wrote:
Daniel wrote:
I've heard people frequently use "she" when referring to a ship. I've even heard men who refer to their cars (ie. "She's a real beauty").

I find it funny when people refer to babies as "it". I've heard someone ask the newborn baby's parents: "Is it a he or a she?"
[/quote]

Yeah, quite amusing.

Actually, in my eyes, referring to babies as "it" is kind of disrespectful. I mean, I don't know. It's like we look down on them. :P

But then in my language, British Sign Language, we don't have any grammatical genders. We refer to everyone as "it" (well, not really "it": there is no translation).

It's funny, because Deaf people whose first language is BSL often mix "she" and "he" up because they're confused, even when referring to someone in their presence, where their physical genders are blindingly obvious. Even I do, sometimes.

For example, my male friend would be standing next to me and someone talking to me would ask something like "How's Jamie?" and I would accidentally say "Oh, she's fine. Oh, I mean... HE!" then I'd turn to Jamie and say "Sorry, Jamie..." but I'd get embarrassed for failing to distinguish "she" and "he". It's simply because the concept of gender just doesn't exist in BSL.
Loic

Daniel:

I refer to ships, countries and of course, cars as a "she". If you read motorcar magazines and pay attention to the description of the latest product line, you'd notice that the language evoked is necessarily one that is used to describe a woman.

Liz:

Well, that means there is prima facie evidence of me being interested in Hungarian. I'd never discount the impossibility of learning it as I am the sort who would make an effort to learn the local lingo when I am in a foreign land. Even if the lingo happens to be Hungarian with its impossible consonants and vowels.
Liz

Loic wrote:
Well, that means there is prima facie evidence of me being interested in Hungarian.

Oh, I see...

Loic wrote:
I'd never discount the impossibility of learning it as I am the sort who would make an effort to learn the local lingo when I am in a foreign land. Even if the lingo happens to be Hungarian with its impossible consonants and vowels.

Impossible? They seem sort of simple to me. All the other sounds, which aren't present in Hungarian, *are* definitely impossible...
Llatai

Benjamin wrote:
It isn't really accurate to say that English has 'no grammatical gender'. It has three grammatical genders — masculine, feminine and neuter, in the form of 'he', 'she', and 'it'. What Llatai probably means is that articles and adjectives do not change in English according to gender, and that inanimate objects are usually neuter, humans (except babies?) can only ever be either masculine or feminine, whilst other animals are masculine/feminine when the biological gender is known, but neuter when it isn't. However, there are some exceptions to this, and this is not the case in all dialects.


Thanks for the clarification Benjamin. Yeah, I meant that there's no gender ascribed for nouns, adjectives etc.

Liz, I only said that because I'd been referring to IE languages. Sorry for the confusion.
Liz

Llatai wrote:
Liz, I only said that because I'd been referring to IE languages. Sorry for the confusion.

Never mind.
Irrintzi

Liz wrote:
Hungarian is completely devoid of grammatical gender. What's more, there is no distinction of and he and she - the elegant and convenient umbrella term ő suffices. We use az when referring to inanimate (thus gender-neutral) beings, though. So, we have a hard time getting those gender pronouns right when speaking other languages.


It's a little similar in Basque.
There're not grammatical genders, no distinction of he and she, but distinction on the 3rd 'to be' (izan's 3rdPS) and 'to have' (ukan's 3rdPS) personal subjects
(HURA(izan)=HARK(ukan)= he, she, it)
see my article at:
http://langcafe2.myfreeforum.org/about338.html

A sentence:
affirmative form : subject + complement(s) + Verb + auxilliar.
Ex : Nik (I) merkatuan (at market) sei (six) zakur (dog) xuriak (whites)erosi (Bought) ditut (have).

In Basque you have usually periphrastic verbs i.e. you have one part of the verb that is the lexical part (the meaning) and one part with the inflected form - past, present, conditional etc.

Another thing you must remember - Basque language is an ergative language, putting it in a simpler way, it has no conventional (as in European languages and Semitic languages) passive. Thus - "The boy saw the dog" would be a little bit different - the dog would have the nominative (absolutive) case and the child the ergative case (involved).

An example from a basque learning site:

Mirenek Patxi ikus d-eza-ke
Miren-E Patxi-A see him-root-mod
'Miren can see Patxi'

Now, the verb is conjugated as I mentioned (the inflected part) in accordance with the ergative + absolutive + dative (if there is) + the verb root + plural (if there is) all in one package!!!!

The problem is the apparent inconsistancy that exists in the inflection: past and present have different roots and different prefexes and suffixes and infixes!!!

Nik liburuak irakurri d-it-u-t
I-E book-detpl read it-pl-have-me
'I have read (the) books'

Nik liburuak irakurri n-it-u-en
I-E book-detpl read me-pl-have-past
'I read (the) books'

zuk guri lore bat ekarri d-i-gu-zu
you-E we-D flower one brought it-have-us-you
'you have brought us one flower'

zuk guri lore bat ekarri z-en-i-gu-n
you-E we-D flower one brought you-have-us-past
'you brought us one flower'

bildu (to store)
Type: Transitive


Perifrastic forms:

Present perfect
nik bildu dut
hik (m.) bildu duk
hik (f.) bildu dun
hark bildu du
guk bildu dugu
zuk bildu duzu
zuek bildu duzue
haiek bildu dute

Past perfect
nik bildu nuen
hik bildu huen
hark bildu zuen
guk bildu genuen
zuk bildu zenuen
zuek bildu zenuten
haiek bildu zuten


Present imperfect
nik biltzen dut
hik (m.) biltzen duk
hik (f.) biltzen dun
hark biltzen du
guk biltzen dugu
zuk biltzen duzu
zuek biltzen duzue
haiek biltzen dute

Past imperfect
nik biltzen nuen
hik biltzen huen
hark biltzen zuen
guk biltzen genuen
zuk biltzen zenuen
zuek biltzen zenuten
haiek biltzen zuten


Future
nik bilduko dut
hik (m.) bilduko duk
hik (f.) bilduko dun
hark bilduko du
guk bilduko dugu
zuk bilduko duzu
zuek bilduko duzue
haiek bilduko dute

Future hypothetic
nik bilduko nuke
hik bilduko huke
hark bilduko luke
guk bilduko genuke
zuk bilduko zenuke
zuek bilduko zenukete
haiek bilduko lukete

That's the beginning...

Now the BASQUE DECLENSIONS

    singular plural indeterminated
    ABSOLUTIVE -a -ak - X
    ERGATIVE -ak -ek -(e)k
    DATIVE -ari -ei -(r)i
    POSSESSIVE GENITIVE -aren -en -(r)en
    LOCATIVE GENITIVE -(e)ko -etako -(e)(ta)ko
    ASSOCIATIVE -arekin -ekin -(r)ekin
    DESTINATIVE -arentzat -entzat -(r)entzat
    INSTRUMENTAL -az -ez -(e)z
    INESSIVE -(e)an -etan -(e)(ta)n
    ABLATIVE -(e)tik -etatik -(e)(ta)tik
    ALLATIVE -(e)ra -etara -(e)(ta)ra
    APPROXIMATIVE -(e)raino -etaraino -(e)(ta)raino
    ADLATIVE -(e)rantz -etarantz -(e)(ta)rantz
    PROLATIVE -X -X -(r)tzat
    PARTITIVE -X -X -(r)ik



I agree to say that most hard in Basque, it's the grammar, the pronunciation and the spelling are very simple besides, the words are spelled phonetically.
Daniel

Irrintzi wrote:
Another thing you must remember - Basque language is an ergative language, putting it in a simpler way, it has no conventional (as in European languages and Semitic languages) passive. Thus - "The boy saw the dog" would be a little bit different - the dog would have the nominative (absolutive) case and the child the ergative case (involved).


Tagalog has that feature since it, too, is an ergative language. Now, I love ergative languages.

Natutulog ka. = You sleep. (lit. Sleep you) [ma- * verbal prefix agreeing that the actor should be in the absolutive case since it's an intransitive verb + reduplicated syllable of root to convey present tense (tu-) + tulog (root) + absolutive pronoun]

Nakikita mo ang aso. = You see the dog. (lit. See you the dog) [ma- * agreeing that the direct object should in the ergative case since it's a transitive verb + reduplicated syllable of root to convey present tense (ki-) + kita (root) + ergative pronoun + absolutive marker + noun]

As you can see, there are two words for "you" in Tagalog (ka (absolutive) and mo (ergative)).

* The ma- verbal prefix changes to na- in certain conjugations. For example, when conveying the present tense, it changes to na- before reduplicating the initial syllable of the root. Most Indo-European languages conjugate their verbs by changing the endings but in Tagalog, the verbal conjugation is done initially instead of finally.

In Tagalog, there are the absolutive, the ergative and the oblique (for locations or directions). I think Basque only has two (absolutive and ergative).

But the strange thing is that not all Tagalog verbs take ma-. Some take maka-, others take one or two or even three of the over 200 different verbal affixes (prefixes, infixes, suffixes and circumfixes) depending on their/its relationship(s) with various elements in a sentence. Sometimes, the Tagalog verb can appear very long and agglutinative - in fact, all the information about the relationship is entirely incorporated within the verb only!

The Basque conjugation looks frightening...
Loic

Hmm....Tagalog is an Austronesian language, but the examples you gave are so radically different from her Austronesian cousins -viz Malay.

Daniel wrote:
Natutulog ka.


Malay: Anda tidur.

Daniel wrote:
Nakikita mo ang aso


Malay: Anda tengoh anjing.

Malay is far from being my native language. It is however my country's national language and I volunteered to study it for 1 year back in school (It is not compulsory to learn it and as such, most people don't know much about it). One peculiar aspect of Malay might be the t-v distinction it makes with the first person pronoun.

I (informal, intimate) = Aku

I (formal, slightly casual) = Saya (pronounced as 'sah-yer')

I (formal, standard) = Saya ('sah-yah')

Another peculiar aspect of Malay would be its fondness for assimilating foreign loan words and making them sound as indigeneous as possible. I think the Indonesians are especially talented in this and they have refined it into an art. Words like 'reformasi' or 'korrupsi' have percolated our vocabulary in the past decade thanks to the sloppy vigilance by the custodians of the Indonesian language.

I am also not sure if this would count as peculiar, but learners of Malay would often realise that there is a plethora of synonyms at their disposal, all of them being loan words. For example, if you wish to say, 'I am going to the office', you have the following options on hand:

Indonesian:

Saya/Aku pergi ke kantor (from Dutch kantoor).

Malay:

Saya/Aku pergi ke opis(from office)/pejabat (from Sanskrit).

My Malay teacher once told me than possibly less than 50 words in contemporary Malay today are derived from autochtonous sources. If this is true, this would make Malay one of the most bastardised tongues in the world.
Daniel

Loic wrote:
Hmm....Tagalog is an Austronesian language, but the examples you gave are so radically different from her Austronesian cousins -viz Malay.

Daniel wrote:
Natutulog ka.


Malay: Anda tidur.

Daniel wrote:
Nakikita mo ang aso


Malay: Anda tengoh anjing.


Yes, both Malay and Tagalog belong to the Austronesian family of languages. However, Tagalog is a member of a branch called Meso-Philippine part of the Malayo-Polynesian group which in turn is part of the Austronesian family. Malay belongs to the Outer Hesperonesian group and Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian group which in turn is part of the Malayo-Polynesian group part of the Austronesian family.

Because of that, Malay and Tagalog both share many cognates:

MALAY - TAGALOG - ENGLISH:
ajar - aral - teach/learn
tolong - tulong - help
makan - kain - eat
lelaki - lalaki - man
anak - anak - child
sakit - sakit - pain/ill/sick
sedap - sarap - delicious/tasty
surat - sulat - write/letter
aku - ako - I
engkau - ikaw - you
dia - siya - he/she/it
pulau - pulo - island
pintu - pinto - door
tangis - tangis - weep/cry
tengah hari - tanghali - afternoon
luar hati - luwalhati - glory
batik - batik - spot
muka - mukha - face/page
cerita - salita - speak/talk
beli - bili - buy/sell
kami - kami - we

Malay and Tagalog uses the affixes in the same way. They both have this ability where they can add affixes to a root to give it extra meanings. For example:

TAGALOG:

1.
aral - study/learn
paaralan - school (place where teaching and learning take place)
mag-aral - to learn

2.
laki - big/large (root)
malaki - big/large (adj.)
malalaki - big/large (adj. plural)
lumaki - to become/grow big
Lumalaki siya. - He is growing bigger.

3.
aklat - book
aklatan - library (place of books)

4.
bundok - mountain
kabundukan - (group of) mountains
tagabundok - from the mountains

5.
ganda - beauty
maganda - beautiful
gumanda - to become beautiful
napakaganda - very beautiful

6.
sulat - letter/write
sumulat - to write
magsulat - to write often
magsulatan - to write to each other
sulatin - to be written
pansulat - for writing (ie. Pansulat ang lapis. - The pencil is for writing.)
palasulat - always writing
sulatan - to write to someone/to write on something

I'm quite surprised that Malay has a very simple way of forming time aspects. You just use separate words like "akan", "sedang" and "sudah":

Saya akan makan. - I will eat.
Saya sedang makan. - I eat. / I am eating.
Saya sudah makan. - I ate. / I have eaten.

In Tagalog:

Kakain ako. - I will eat.
Kumakain ako. - I eat. / I am eating.
Kumain ako. - I ate. / I have eaten.

Conjugation:
root: kain
infinitive: kumain (add -um- infix after initial consonant)
past tense: kumain (see above)
present tense: kumakain (repeat initial syllable of root before adding -um-)
future: kakain (simply repeat initial syllable)

The thing is that in Malay the time words can be omitted if context is made clear but in Tagalog, the conjugated verb forms must be retained.

What makes the Tagalog verbal conjugation even more complicated is the fact that there are around 100 verbal affixes, which means that a Tagalog verb can have up to 100 different forms (and not all of them are regular)! And you have to bear in mind that the initial consonant of the verb may have to undergo certain sound changes according to spelling rules. For example, the initial "s" or "p" may be dropped before taking a prefix.

So you have:

kanin - to be eaten
Kinain ko ang manok. - I ate the chicken.
Kinakain ko ang manok. - I eat/am eating the chicken.
Kakanin ko ang manok. - I will eat the chicken.

makain * - to be able to eat
Nakain ko ang manok. - I was able to eat the chicken.
Nakakain ko ang manok. - I can/am able to eat the chicken.
Makakain ko ang manok. - I will be able to eat the chicken.

makakain * - to be able to eat
Nakakain ako ng manok. I- was able to eat (some) chicken.
Nakakakain ako ng manok. - I can/am able to eat (some) chicken.
Makakakain ako ng manok. - I will be able to eat (some) chicken.

* If you put the stress accent on the first syllable of the prefix ma- and the second syllable of maka- then the meaning is "to do something by accident". For example:

Makákain ako ng manok. - I ate chicken by mistake (because I'd thought it was something else)
Loic

Daniel:

I must say that I am very impressed by your explanation. Your grasp of Malay also strikes me as able and competent.

I'd like to say that my knowledge of standard Malay or Bahasa Melayu Baku is rudimentary at best as I am more used to speaking a Malay creole or Pasar Melayu on the streets. For example 'engkau' for you would be truncated to 'kau'. We'd mostly do away with 'sedang' to express an action in the present continuous tense. In fact, Pasar Melayu was actually the lingua franca in the plural society of Singapore and Malaysia during colonial times.
TaylorS

English has an odd usage of the Present Progressive ("am/are/is X-ing") in that it has become the "default" form for the Present Tense with active verbs, with the Simple Present form having an habitual meaning. So we say "I am running today" but "I run every morning".

And about that "-ing" ending; it is actually a fusion of 2 Old English endings, the "-unge" gerund ending and the "-ende" present participle ending. In Old English to say "I was hunting" you could either say "Ic wćs on huntunge" or "Ic wćs huntende. a few hundred years later this had become something like "I was a-hunting" and "I was huntin".
Uriel

Ah!  So that's where that "a-" came from.....

       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Language-related topics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum