French uses "ne" (or its contracted forms) in various situations where English wouldn't directly translate with "not."
Here are some examples:
0.-- Negation with certain expressions:
English: I hardly ever see him.
French: Je ne le vois presque jamais. (Literally: I not him see almost never)
Here, "ne" negates the verb "vois" (see), but "pas" isn't used.
Instead, "presque jamais" (almost never) conveys the idea of "hardly."
1.-- Idiomatic expressions:
English: It doesn't matter.
French: Ça ne fait rien (Literally: That not does nothing)
"Ne" negates the verb phrase "fait rien" (does nothing) to express that something has no consequence.
2.-- Negation with "que":
English: I only have ten euros.
French: Je n'ai que dix euros. (Literally: I not have only ten euros)
Here, "ne" negates the verb "ai" (have), but "que" (only) emphasizes
the limited quantity, conveying the same meaning as the English
sentence.
3.-- Negation with specific pronouns:
French: Personne ne sait.
English: Nobody knows.
French uses specific negative pronouns like "personne" (nobody) that
directly express negation, whereas English relies on the pronoun itself.
4.-- Negation with comparisons:
English: He is not as tall as me.
French: Il n'est pas aussi grand que moi. (Literally: He not is not as
big as me)
French uses "ne" before the verb "est" (is) and reinforces negation
with "pas" before the comparative adjective "aussi grand" (as big).
5.-- Negation with infinitives:
English: I told him not to come.
French: Je lui ai dit de ne pas venir. (Literally: I to him told of not
to come)
French places "ne" before the infinitive "venir" (to come) to express
the negative command.
______________________________The pleonastic ne
Examples:
Je crains qu'il ne pleuve. (I fear it may rain.) - "Ne" emphasizes the possibility of rain, a negative outcome.
Ces exercices sont plus difficiles que je ne le pensais. (These
exercises are harder than I thought.) - "Ne" strengthens the unexpected difficulty.
Crucially:
The pleonastic ne is optional. Sentences are grammatically correct without it.
It's more prevalent in formal French and might be less common in spoken language.
French uses "ne" (or its contracted forms) in various situations where English wouldn't directly translate with "not." [...]
Crucially:
The pleonastic ne is optional. Sentences are grammatically correct
without it. [...]
The pleonastic ne is optional. Sentences are grammatically correct
without it. [...]
It's more complicated than that, p.e. (par exemple) :
Il n'a plus d'énergie.
He has no more energy.
Il a plus d'énergie.
He has more energy.
'Ne' is quite important there.
Often plain "pas" is used instead of "ne ... pas" andFrench "ne" has almost totally lost its original meaning of 'not'.
Examples:
Je crains qu'il ne pleuve. (I fear it may rain.) - "Ne" emphasizes the
possibility of rain, a negative outcome.
Ces exercices sont plus difficiles que je ne le pensais. (These
exercises are harder than I thought.) - "Ne" strengthens the unexpected difficulty.
Crucially:
The pleonastic ne is optional. Sentences are grammatically correct without it.
It's more prevalent in formal French and might be less common in spoken language.
Could someone confirm that the following NE is optional?
Dans le parti on ne connaît que des militants. (There are only militants in the party.)
Le 13/03/2024 à 06:06, HenHanna a écrit :
Could someone confirm that the following NE is optional?
Dans le parti on ne connaît que des militants. (There are only
militants in the party.)
'Optional' is not the right term. It is often omitted in informal
speech. I wouldn't omit it in writing unless mimicking speech.
'Omission de « ne »' - <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9gation_en_fran%C3%A7ais#Omission_de_%C2%AB_ne_%C2%BB>
Hélas, rien ne va plus. ------ Is this a famous quote? from a play?
Dans le parti on ne connaît que des militants. (There are only
militants in the party.)
(There are only militants in the party.)
3.-- Negation with specific pronouns:
French: Personne ne sait.
English: Nobody knows.
French uses specific negative pronouns like "personne" (nobody) that
directly express negation, whereas English relies on the pronoun itself.
Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:17:01 -0700: HenHanna <[email protected]>But never in the position of negation (with or without "ne"), at least
scribeva:
3.-- Negation with specific pronouns:
French: Personne ne sait.
English: Nobody knows.
French uses specific negative pronouns like "personne" (nobody) that
directly express negation, whereas English relies on the pronoun itself.
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows". "Personne" in French can also mean
"person".
French: Personne ne sait.
English: Nobody knows.
French uses specific negative pronouns like "personne" (nobody) that >>directly express negation, whereas English relies on the pronoun itself.
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
That's etymology. In Old French, "ne" expressed the negation and
this was strengthened by "personne" (no person), "rien" (no thing),
"jamais" (not ever), etc. Eventually, the negated meaning shifted
over to those words. As we have mentioned several times already,
in contemporary spoken French, "ne" is frequently omitted, so it
can't express anything, because it isn't there.
This means the words that were combined with "ne" have actually
negated their meaning, e.g. "jamais" from 'ever' to 'never', etc.
This is something to be aware of when encountering their cognates
in other Romance languages; e.g. French "aucun" means 'none, no one',
but Spanish "alguno" means 'some'.
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
On 2024-03-24, Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
That's etymology. In Old French, "ne" expressed the negation and
this was strengthened by "personne" (no person), "rien" (no thing),
"jamais" (not ever), etc. Eventually, the negated meaning shifted
over to those words. As we have mentioned several times already,
in contemporary spoken French, "ne" is frequently omitted, so it
can't express anything, because it isn't there.
This means the words that were combined with "ne" have actually
negated their meaning, e.g. "jamais" from 'ever' to 'never', etc.
This is something to be aware of when encountering their cognates
in other Romance languages; e.g. French "aucun" means 'none, no one',
but Spanish "alguno" means 'some'.
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
Also, "ne" expresses not only negation:
Je crains qu'il ne vienne me chercher.
J'ai peur qu'il ne soit trop tard.
Ce n'est qu'un au-revoir.
Ce n'est que moi.
Op 24/03/2024 om 20:02 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
Si jamais je le vois, je lui dirai qu'ici aussi il manque un petit rien.
Op 24/03/2024 om 20:02 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
On 2024-03-24, Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
No: "person n't knows".
BTW Germanic negations like "not, niet, nicht", are also descended from
an unstressed negation term ne- + some strengthening word, but the
negation particle kept stuck to the latter and thus didn't disappear >altogether.
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <[email protected]> scribeva:
That's etymology. In Old French, "ne" expressed the negation and
this was strengthened by "personne" (no person), "rien" (no thing),
"jamais" (not ever), etc. Eventually, the negated meaning shifted
over to those words. As we have mentioned several times already,
in contemporary spoken French, "ne" is frequently omitted, so it
can't express anything, because it isn't there.
This means the words that were combined with "ne" have actually
negated their meaning, e.g. "jamais" from 'ever' to 'never', etc.
This is something to be aware of when encountering their cognates
in other Romance languages; e.g. French "aucun" means 'none, no one',
but Spanish "alguno" means 'some'.
True.
But I thought explaining the historic background would make it easier
for HenHenna to understand what is going on. And for myself for that
matter.
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Yes.
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
OK. Still so in Interlingua today, and I think also in Portuguese.
On 25/03/24 01:46, wugi wrote:
Also, "ne" expresses not only negation:
Je crains qu'il ne vienne me chercher.
J'ai peur qu'il ne soit trop tard.
Ce n'est qu'un au-revoir.
Ce n'est que moi.
The first two of those are examples of the phenomenon that started this thread: the use of "ne" with certain kinds of subjunctive, with a non-negative meaning.
The second two are genuine negatives, where ne...que works the same way
as ne...pas and ne...jamais and so on. We learn that ne...que means
"only" in English, but if you analyse it down "Ce n'est que moi" really
means "It is not but me".
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<[email protected]> scribeva:
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
OK. Still so in Interlingua today, and I think also in Portuguese.
I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it >always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_ >nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely >negative on its own, just like 'never'.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo >algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in >Brazil.
In Brazil you also meet _sequer_ 'not even', which in Portugal is much more >common but with a mandatory _nem_ preceding it.
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<[email protected]> scribeva:
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'. >>>>
Only in literary usage.
OK. Still so in Interlingua today, and I think also in Portuguese.
I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it
always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_ >> nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely
negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais contradicts what you write.
https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’, English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<[email protected]> scribeva:
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'. >>>>
Only in literary usage.
OK. Still so in Interlingua today, and I think also in Portuguese.
I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it
always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_ >> nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely
negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’, English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo >> algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in
Brazil.
In Brazil you also meet _sequer_ 'not even', which in Portugal is much more >> common but with a mandatory _nem_ preceding it.
Op 26/03/2024 om 8:10 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<[email protected]> scribeva:
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'. >>>>>
Only in literary usage.
OK. Still so in Interlingua today, and I think also in Portuguese.
I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it
always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_ >>> nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely >>> negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais
contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo >>> algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in
Brazil.
My pocket dico says for 'jamais':
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
in sp., a double negative can be used for a simple one:
nadie jamás vino.
ninguém jamais veio.
nobody (n)ever came.
google translate:
si jamais je le vois ->
se algum dia eu o ver.
If I turn it around like
se jamais eu o ver ->
si je ne le vois jamais.
(same result in sp.)
In Brazil you also meet _sequer_ 'not even', which in Portugal is much more >>> common but with a mandatory _nem_ preceding it.
sp.: siquiera =/= ni siquiera
So you think the Portuguese word jamais is from French? My sources
(whatever they are worth) say it's from native Portuguese words já and
mais.
but it's never
caught on. If you ever find it in the wild, it'll most likely be used as an >>expletive, 'never!'.
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Did Camões already, or still use it? Bocage? Eça de Queiróz?
I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it >>>> always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_ >>>> nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely >>>> negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais
contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo
algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in >>>> Brazil.
My pocket dico says for 'jamais':
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
in sp., a double negative can be used for a simple one:
It would be q good hypothesis, but I don't think that's it. The matter of >fact is that the word may have been imported at some point,
but it's never
caught on. If you ever find it in the wild, it'll most likely be used as an >expletive, 'never!'.
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:21:07 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]>
scribeva:
So you think the Portuguese word jamais is from French? My sources
(whatever they are worth) say it's from native Portuguese words já and
mais.
Via Occitan, even:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamais#Etymology_3
"From Old Galician-Portuguese jamais, from Old Occitan ja mais, from
Latin iam magis. Cognate with Galician xamais, Spanish jamás, Occitan
jamai, French jamais and Italian giammai."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xamais#Galician
"From Old Galician-Portuguese jamais, from Old Occitan ja mais.
Compare Portuguese jamais, Spanish jamás, French jamais and Italian giammai."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ja_mais#Old_Occitan
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/giammai#Italian
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:I'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it >>>>> always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_
nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely >>>>> negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais
contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo
algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in >>>>> Brazil.
My pocket dico says for 'jamais':
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
in sp., a double negative can be used for a simple one:
It would be q good hypothesis, but I don't think that's it. The matter of
fact is that the word may have been imported at some point,
So you think the Portuguese word jamais is from French? My sources
(whatever they are worth) say it's from native Portuguese words já and
mais.
but it's never
caught on. If you ever find it in the wild, it'll most likely be used as an >> expletive, 'never!'.
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Did Camões already, or still use it? Bocage? Eça de Queiróz?
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio MarquesI'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it >>>>>> always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_
nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely
negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais
contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo
algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in >>>>>> Brazil.
My pocket dico says for 'jamais':
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as >>>> in sp., a double negative can be used for a simple one:
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
It would be q good hypothesis, but I don't think that's it. The matter of >>> fact is that the word may have been imported at some point,
So you think the Portuguese word jamais is from French? My sources
(whatever they are worth) say it's from native Portuguese words já and
mais.
I wouldn't say it's from french, your occitan hypothesis is more likely,
but it's remained unnatural all these centuries.
but it's never
caught on. If you ever find it in the wild, it'll most likely be used as an >>> expletive, 'never!'.
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio MarquesI'm not sure _jamais_ is even a portuguese word, but where it's used it >>>>>>> always means 'never', and isn't accompanied by _não_. If there's a _não_
nearby, it connects to something else in the sentence, _jamais_ is purely
negative on its own, just like 'never'.
I thought that was [pt] nunca / [ia] nunquam?
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais >>>>>> contradicts what you write. https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais >>>>>> seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
As to a negative _algum_, there's the stock phrase _nunca, jamais, em tempo
algum_ 'never, never ever, at nonesoever moment', which you'll hear in >>>>>>> Brazil.
My pocket dico says for 'jamais':
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as >>>>> in sp., a double negative can be used for a simple one:
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
It would be q good hypothesis, but I don't think that's it. The matter of >>>> fact is that the word may have been imported at some point,
So you think the Portuguese word jamais is from French? My sources
(whatever they are worth) say it's from native Portuguese words já and
mais.
I wouldn't say it's from french, your occitan hypothesis is more likely,
but it's remained unnatural all these centuries.
but it's never
caught on. If you ever find it in the wild, it'll most likely be used as an
expletive, 'never!'.
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication that the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication
that
the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in
its place.
fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".
sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
Did Camões already, or still use it? Bocage? Eça de Queiróz?
I'm pretty sure al 3 used it. What I mean is that it's not only literary,
it feels alien. Even though it's unremarkable in shape.
On 28/03/24 21:56, wugi wrote:
Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication
that
the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in
its place.
fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".
sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
OK, let's look at a French example.
Je n'y irai jamais.
Je n'y irai plus jamais.
Yes, the second strongly suggests that I've been there before, but the
change in meaning comes only from the extra word "plus". "Jamais" still
means the same in the two cases.
More importantly, "jamais" is a common word in French, while I gather
that it is a lot less common in Portuguese. Its use in Portuguese seems
to be the central point in this discussion.
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
Its use in Portuguese seems
to be the central point in this discussion.
Op 28/03/2024 om 12:26 schreef Peter Moylan:
On 28/03/24 21:56, wugi wrote:
Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that >>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication
that
the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in
its place.
fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".
sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
OK, let's look at a French example.
Je n'y irai jamais.
Je n'y irai plus jamais.
Yes, the second strongly suggests that I've been there before, but the
change in meaning comes only from the extra word "plus". "Jamais" still
means the same in the two cases.
More importantly, "jamais" is a common word in French, while I gather
that it is a lot less common in Portuguese. Its use in Portuguese seems
to be the central point in this discussion.
It is, but the given alternative "nunca mais" seems to have landed off
the intended meaning of '*'jamais.
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
wugi <[email protected]d> wrote:
Op 28/03/2024 om 12:26 schreef Peter Moylan:
On 28/03/24 21:56, wugi wrote:
Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that >>>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication >>>>> that
the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in >>>> its place.
fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".
sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
OK, let's look at a French example.
Je n'y irai jamais.
Je n'y irai plus jamais.
Yes, the second strongly suggests that I've been there before, but the
change in meaning comes only from the extra word "plus". "Jamais" still
means the same in the two cases.
More importantly, "jamais" is a common word in French, while I gather
that it is a lot less common in Portuguese. Its use in Portuguese seems
to be the central point in this discussion.
It is, but the given alternative "nunca mais" seems to have landed off
the intended meaning of '*'jamais.
NB _nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean 'never (again)'.
On 27/03/24 17:21, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Attend enough demonstrations, and you'll hear the almost identical
slogan in English.
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_ >and it actually scans better.
Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:23:17 +1100: Peter Moylan
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
On 27/03/24 17:21, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Attend enough demonstrations, and you'll hear the almost identical
slogan in English.
How? With what metre?
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques ><[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_ >>and it actually scans better.
What's the metre then? Does .ca. coincide with .já., and 'nung' gets
an extra syllable?
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
NB [...]
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
NB _nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean 'never (again)'.
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean? https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:12:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]>
scribeva:
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
09:18 Queremos ser humanos, e nunca deixar de o ser.
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:39 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:12:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]>
scribeva:
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
09:18 Queremos ser humanos, e nunca deixar de o ser.
Aha, 'nunca' [alone] of course. That's what my dico gives also for
'never', not 'nunca mais'.
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo >> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo >>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:39 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:12:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]>
scribeva:
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
09:18 Queremos ser humanos, e nunca deixar de o ser.
Aha, 'nunca' [alone] of course. That's what my dico gives also for
'never', not 'nunca mais'.
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
'nunca mais' will be substituted.
That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_ >> and it actually scans better.
What's the metre then? Does .ca. coincide with .já., and 'nung' gets
an extra syllable?
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
Op 28/03/2024 om 23:47 schreef Antonio Marques:
wugi <[email protected]d> wrote:
Op 28/03/2024 om 12:26 schreef Peter Moylan:
On 28/03/24 21:56, wugi wrote:
Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that >>>>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
(A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication >>>>>> that
the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in >>>>> its place.
fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".
sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
OK, let's look at a French example.
Je n'y irai jamais.
Je n'y irai plus jamais.
Yes, the second strongly suggests that I've been there before, but the >>>> change in meaning comes only from the extra word "plus". "Jamais" still >>>> means the same in the two cases.
More importantly, "jamais" is a common word in French, while I gather
that it is a lot less common in Portuguese. Its use in Portuguese seems >>>> to be the central point in this discussion.
It is, but the given alternative "nunca mais" seems to have landed off
the intended meaning of '*'jamais.
NB _nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed >> to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
So then, which term represents the latter?
But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean
'never (again)'.
It certainly sounds like this, not like "never before, now, and after".
NB_nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean 'never (again)'.
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
On 29/03/24 09:47, Antonio Marques wrote:
NB_nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed >> to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean
'never (again)'.
Quoth the raven ...
_se deitares isso ao poço, nunca mais ninguém o encontra_ 'if you throw >that into the well, nobody will ever find it'
vs
_se prenderes isso com uma fita, nunca mais o perdes_ 'if you fasten that >with a strap, you'll never lose it again'
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that >>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_ >>> and it actually scans better.
What's the metre then? Does .ca. coincide with .já., and 'nung' gets
an extra syllable?
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
is.
o POV-o
u-NI-do
nun-ca MAIS se
rá ven-CI-do
(for the war cry, of course. other uses may have other timings.)
You forget our willingness to fit two syllables into one. That's already
what happens with '-rá ven-', 'nun-ca' mirrors it.
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo >>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
It might depend on what you mean by "reflexive". If you mean
something that would be translated as "dance itself", then
that's probably true.
I happen to know of what looks like a reflexive "ser" in
poetry:
Cuando el Ser que se es hizo la nada
y reposó, que bien lo merecía,
ya tuvo el día noche, y compañía
tuvo el hombre en la ausencia de la amada.
Antonio Machado, "Al gran cero".
When Being that is itself made nothingness
and took a well-deserved rest,
day finally had its night, and man
had company in the absence of his beloved.
Armand F. Baker trans.
https://armandfbaker.github.io/translations/apocryphal/CLXVII_abel_martin.pdf
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 21:55:05 +0100: wugi <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Op 24/03/2024 om 20:02 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
On 2024-03-24, Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
No: "person n't knows".
Yes, better.
God:
Ik ben die ben. I am who (I?) am. Ego sum qui sum. Or wittily:
I am that Ben!
Only in writing, but the written register requires "ne" in any case.
The literary language also has affirmative "jamais" ('ever') and
even positive "rien" ('something').
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
preciso.Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What >>>>> does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
But is that true?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serse https://die.udistrital.edu.co/publicaciones/capitulos_de_libro/el_ser_ahi_como_ser_temporal
Op 4/05/2024 om 8:28 schreef ulf_kutzner:What
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
over:preciso.does he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
But is that true?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serse
https://die.udistrital.edu.co/publicaciones/capitulos_de_libro/el_ser_ahi_como_ser_temporal
As I mentioned higher in the thread, it's an impersonal mode, a passive,
not a reflexive one.
There is being been, but not been [at] oneself.
It seems also restricted to infinitives with a modal verb, eg
No se puede ser libre aquí.
!*No se es libre aquí.
?Se será libre aquí.
In the latter cases an active impersonal form (uno, una) would take
(No puede ser uno libre aquí.)
Uno no es libre aquí.
Será libre uno aquí.
Or in that vein...
wugi wrote:
Op 4/05/2024 om 8:28 schreef ulf_kutzner:https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
WhatEven very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
pluralismodoes he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao
https://die.udistrital.edu.co/publicaciones/capitulos_de_libro/el_ser_ahi_como_ser_temporalpreciso.e ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean? >>>>>>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
But is that true?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serse
As I mentioned higher in the thread, it's an impersonal mode, a passive,
not a reflexive one.
There is being been, but not been [at] oneself.
It seems also restricted to infinitives with a modal verb, eg
No se puede ser libre aquí.
!*No se es libre aquí.
?Se será libre aquí.
In the latter cases an active impersonal form (uno, una) would takeover:
(No puede ser uno libre aquí.)
Uno no es libre aquí.
Será libre uno aquí.
Or in that vein...
Is
Se puede ser
equal to:
Puede serse
?
Or is the serse form older and somehow outdated?
Op 4/05/2024 om 19:27 schreef ulf_kutzner:
wugi wrote:
Op 4/05/2024 om 8:28 schreef ulf_kutzner:https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
WhatEven very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
pluralismodoes he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao
https://die.udistrital.edu.co/publicaciones/capitulos_de_libro/el_ser_ahi_como_ser_temporale ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean? >>>>>>>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no? >>>>>>>>
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y >>>> preciso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
But is that true?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serse
As I mentioned higher in the thread, it's an impersonal mode, a passive,over:
not a reflexive one.
There is being been, but not been [at] oneself.
It seems also restricted to infinitives with a modal verb, eg
No se puede ser libre aquí.
!*No se es libre aquí.
?Se será libre aquí.
In the latter cases an active impersonal form (uno, una) would take
(No puede ser uno libre aquí.)
Uno no es libre aquí.
Será libre uno aquí.
Or in that vein...
Is
Se puede ser
equal to:
Puede serse
?
Or is the serse form older and somehow outdated?
They are equivalent, if used at different frequencies.
Lo puedes hacer = Puedes hacerlo,
Se lo puedes dar = puedes darselo,
and alike...
Antonio Marques wrote:
,,,
NB that properly speaking se produces sentences that agree in number with
the passive voice, e.g. vendem-se barcos and not vende-se barcos. However, >> its long been reinterpreted as an impersonal subject, due to its actual
frequent singular use with abstracts (diz-se que... = it's said that...),
and will be found everywhere in the singular even with plural references
(*vende-se barcos = 'it's sold boats' rather than the historical 'boats are >> sold'.)
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
Finding examples is easy, but plural concord is much more common.
From the Web/Dialects section of the corpus del español:
https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/
se vende [plural noun]: 85
se venden [plural noun]: 1401
I suppose grammar checkers might be involved.
ulf_kutzner wrote:
jerryfriedman wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
,,,
NB that properly speaking se produces sentences that agree in number with >>>> the passive voice, e.g. vendem-se barcos and not vende-se barcos. However, >>>> its long been reinterpreted as an impersonal subject, due to its actual >>>> frequent singular use with abstracts (diz-se que... = it's said that...), >>>> and will be found everywhere in the singular even with plural references >>>> (*vende-se barcos = 'it's sold boats' rather than the historical 'boats are
sold'.)
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
Finding examples is easy, but plural concord is much more common.
From the Web/Dialects section of the corpus del español:
https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/
se vende [plural noun]: 85
se venden [plural noun]: 1401
I suppose grammar checkers might be involved.
It's always possible to mix up Spanish and Portuguese
but not always recommended.
True, though I don't see why you mentioned it.
ulf_kutzner wrote:
jerryfriedman wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
,,,
NB that properly speaking se produces sentences that agree in number with >>>> the passive voice, e.g. vendem-se barcos and not vende-se barcos. However, >>>> its long been reinterpreted as an impersonal subject, due to its actual >>>> frequent singular use with abstracts (diz-se que... = it's said that...), >>>> and will be found everywhere in the singular even with plural references >>>> (*vende-se barcos = 'it's sold boats' rather than the historical 'boats are
sold'.)
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
Finding examples is easy, but plural concord is much more common.
From the Web/Dialects section of the corpus del español:
https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/
se vende [plural noun]: 85
se venden [plural noun]: 1401
I suppose grammar checkers might be involved.
It's always possible to mix up Spanish and Portuguese
but not always recommended.
True, though I don't see why you mentioned it.
(...)
I was responding to Antonio's remark "I have no idea if something
similar happens in Spanish." (Capitalization added.)
wugi <[email protected]d> wrote:
Op 4/05/2024 om 19:27 schreef ulf_kutzner:
wugi wrote:
Op 4/05/2024 om 8:28 schreef ulf_kutzner:https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<[email protected]d> scribeva:
NB [...]
WhatEven very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
pluralismodoes he say?
"Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao
https://die.udistrital.edu.co/publicaciones/capitulos_de_libro/el_ser_ahi_como_ser_temporale ao respeito à democracia ..."
Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean? >>>>>>>>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
"5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
Become?
But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no? >>>>>>>>>
Really quite puzzled.
It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
I suppose it works also in sp.
No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
One may not be an anti-democrat here.
No se puede estar tranquilo.
One can't be at ease.
Apparently even with "puede serse".
Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y >>>>> preciso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
No se puede bailar allá.
Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the >>>>>>> ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)
Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?
But is that true?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serse
As I mentioned higher in the thread, it's an impersonal mode, a passive, >>>over:
not a reflexive one.
There is being been, but not been [at] oneself.
It seems also restricted to infinitives with a modal verb, eg
No se puede ser libre aquí.
!*No se es libre aquí.
?Se será libre aquí.
In the latter cases an active impersonal form (uno, una) would take
(No puede ser uno libre aquí.)
Uno no es libre aquí.
Será libre uno aquí.
Or in that vein...
Is
Se puede ser
equal to:
Puede serse
?
Or is the serse form older and somehow outdated?
They are equivalent, if used at different frequencies.
Lo puedes hacer = Puedes hacerlo,
Se lo puedes dar = puedes darselo,
and alike...
I don't quite know how spanish works. In Portugal, the aforementioned
passive particle se is usually a clitic and can move between verbs: pode-se ser = pode ser-se.
In Brazil it's not a clinic and can only come before the verb it refers to, so in fact
pt pode ser-se = br pode se ser
pt pode-se ser = br se pode ser
It's also possible for it not to be a clitic in Portugal, in subordinate clauses. So for 'which can be found':
- que se pode encontrar
- *que pode se encontrar (normal br)
- *que pode-se encontrar
- que pode encontrar-se
and for 'which gradually becomes':
- que se vai tornando
- que vai tornando-se (sounds awful, but is the idiomatic form for older generations)
- que vai-se tornando (colloquial, when you speak before you know how the sentence ends)
(this is not a reflexive use)
NB that properly speaking se produces sentences that agree in number with
the passive voice, e.g. vendem-se barcos and not vende-se barcos. However, its long been reinterpreted as an impersonal subject, due to its actual frequent singular use with abstracts (diz-se que... = it's said that...),
and will be found everywhere in the singular even with plural references (*vende-se barcos = 'it's sold boats' rather than the historical 'boats are sold'.)
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred. >Example:
Aardappelen worden daar graag gegeten.
Potatoes are popular (being eaten "gladly") over there.
(The "normal" passive has already this awkwardness, that the adverb
'graag' describes not the mood of the potatoes, but that of their eaters!)
Better:
Er worden daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
There are potatoes being eaten "gladly" over there.
(with our versatile 'er' particle, < 'daar', there)
The preceding form even allows an "impersonal passive" (of intransitive >verbs!):
Er wordt daar veel gedanst.
There is much dancing (being often danced) over there.
(Nothing definite is "being" danced...)
Now the parallel with "vende-se barcos":
*Er _wordt_ daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
There _is_ being eaten "gladly" potatoes over there...
Supposedly ungrammatical, but meseems slowly replacing the former.
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
See before.
Sat, 11 May 2024 22:42:51 +0200: wugi <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred.
Example:
Aardappelen worden daar graag gegeten.
Potatoes are popular (being eaten "gladly") over there.
(The "normal" passive has already this awkwardness, that the adverb
'graag' describes not the mood of the potatoes, but that of their eaters!) >>
Better:
Er worden daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
Doesn't sound better to me.
Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Sat, 11 May 2024 22:42:51 +0200: wugi <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred.
Example:
Aardappelen worden daar graag gegeten.
Potatoes are popular (being eaten "gladly") over there.
(The "normal" passive has already this awkwardness, that the adverb
'graag' describes not the mood of the potatoes, but that of their eaters!) >>>
Better:
Er worden daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
Doesn't sound better to me.
I thought slapping an 'er' anywhere automatically made anything good dutch.
As wugi says, the one with woordt feels like an exact parallel to our >'vende-se [plural noun]'.
wugi wrote:
..
In Spanish (AFAIK) 'se' precedes the modal verb, or joins the main..
verb form (infinitive, gerund) behind.
Se puede encontrar.
Puede encontrarse.
Se está mostrando.
Está mostrandose.
The only clitic to a "main" verb form that I know of is in
Érase una vez, once upon a time...
AFAIK, the rules are the same for all object pronouns. They also
come after, and spelled as one word with, imperatives.
I hadn't really thought about the grammar of "vámonos", but it's by
far the most common example of a reflexive pronoun as a suffix on
a main verb that I can think of. There's also "véase" 'see [a
reference], vide', which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
The construction lasted longer in poetry, and for all I know it
might still be around as an archaim or a metrical device. Here's
one from Antonio Machado's _Soledades_ (1899-1907):
con agrio rüido abrióse la puerta
de hierro mohoso
with a bitter sound the door of rusty iron opened (itself)
https://armandfbaker.github.io/translations/solitude/solitude_poems_I-XIX.pdf
Op 15/05/2024 om 19:13 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
..
In Spanish (AFAIK) 'se' precedes the modal verb, or joins the main..
verb form (infinitive, gerund) behind.
Se puede encontrar.
Puede encontrarse.
Se está mostrando.
Está mostrandose.
The only clitic to a "main" verb form that I know of is in
Érase una vez, once upon a time...
AFAIK, the rules are the same for all object pronouns. They also
come after, and spelled as one word with, imperatives.
I hadn't really thought about the grammar of "vámonos", but it's by
far the most common example of a reflexive pronoun as a suffix on
a main verb that I can think of. There's also "véase" 'see [a
reference], vide', which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
Yes, of course. How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit
down, siéntese.
Jerry Friedman:
which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit
down, siéntese.
Cuídense is also a common wish and, awkwardly, often "reconjugated" as >cuídesen, as if the "se" part wasn't felt a seperate particle anymore,
or just absent-mindedly?
The construction lasted longer in poetry, and for all I know it
might still be around as an archaim or a metrical device. Here's
one from Antonio Machado's _Soledades_ (1899-1907):
con agrio rüido abrióse la puerta
de hierro mohoso
with a bitter sound the door of rusty iron opened (itself)
https://armandfbaker.github.io/translations/solitude/solitude_poems_I-XIX.pdf
Nice examples, thanks!
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Wed, 15 May 2024 23:30:46 +0200: wugi <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Op 15/05/2024 om 19:13 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
..
In Spanish (AFAIK) 'se' precedes the modal verb, or joins the main..
verb form (infinitive, gerund) behind.
Se puede encontrar.
Puede encontrarse.
Se está mostrando.
Está mostrandose.
The only clitic to a "main" verb form that I know of is in
Érase una vez, once upon a time...
AFAIK, the rules are the same for all object pronouns. They also
come after, and spelled as one word with, imperatives.
I hadn't really thought about the grammar of "vámonos", but it's by
far the most common example of a reflexive pronoun as a suffix on
a main verb that I can think of. There's also "véase" 'see [a
reference], vide', which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
Yes, of course. How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to
sit down, siéntese.
Jerry Friedman:
which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative
uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses
the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form. I'd add that all
negated imperatives are the same as the subjunctive.
Now I'm not sure whether "véase" is an imperative or a
subjunctive, since "véanse los" gets only a few Google hits,
but "véase los" gets lots.
wugi wrote:
Op 15/05/2024 om 19:13 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
..
In Spanish (AFAIK) 'se' precedes the modal verb, or joins the main..
verb form (infinitive, gerund) behind.
Se puede encontrar.
Puede encontrarse.
Se está mostrando.
Está mostrandose.
The only clitic to a "main" verb form that I know of is in
Érase una vez, once upon a time...
AFAIK, the rules are the same for all object pronouns. They also
come after, and spelled as one word with, imperatives.
I hadn't really thought about the grammar of "vámonos", but it's by
far the most common example of a reflexive pronoun as a suffix on
a main verb that I can think of. There's also "véase" 'see [a
reference], vide', which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
Yes, of course. How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit
down, siéntese.
Your brother-in-law uses the formal form with you? None of my
business, but I'd be interested to know where he's from.
Cuídense is also a common wish and, awkwardly, often "reconjugated" as..
cuídesen, as if the "se" part wasn't felt a seperate particle anymore,
or just absent-mindedly?
Interesting. I haven't run into that.
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative
uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses
the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
I'd add that all
negated imperatives are the same as the subjunctive.
Now I'm not sure whether "véase" is an imperative or a
subjunctive, since "véanse los" gets only a few Google hits,
but "véase los" gets lots.
wugi wrote:
Op 16/05/2024 om 13:33 schreef jerryfriedman:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Wed, 15 May 2024 23:30:46 +0200: wugi <[email protected]d> scribeva:
Op 15/05/2024 om 19:13 schreef jerryfriedman:
wugi wrote:
..
In Spanish (AFAIK) 'se' precedes the modal verb, or joins the..
main verb form (infinitive, gerund) behind.
Se puede encontrar.
Puede encontrarse.
Se está mostrando.
Está mostrandose.
The only clitic to a "main" verb form that I know of is in
Érase una vez, once upon a time...
AFAIK, the rules are the same for all object pronouns. They also >>>>>> come after, and spelled as one word with, imperatives.
I hadn't really thought about the grammar of "vámonos", but it's by >>>>>> far the most common example of a reflexive pronoun as a suffix on
a main verb that I can think of. There's also "véase" 'see [a
reference], vide', which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever] >>>>>> be seen", not an imperative.
Yes, of course. How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to
sit down, siéntese.
Jerry Friedman:
which I take to be a subjunctive "let [whatever]
be seen", not an imperative.
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative
uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses
the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form. I'd add that all
negated imperatives are the same as the subjunctive.
Now I'm not sure whether "véase" is an imperative or a
subjunctive, since "véanse los" gets only a few Google hits,
but "véase los" gets lots.
I suppose the subjunctive would come mostly with "que...", the
imperative without it.
"Véase [Ud.] las [cosas]" is obviously an imperative.
*"Véanse las cosas" would be an interesting counterpart to the example
"Se vende barcos" elsewhere in the thread. Both erroneous, at least in
my 'personal grammar' ;-)
Piénseselas.
This appears to say that "Véanse las cosas" can be correct with a
passive meaning, and that "Véase [Ud.] las [cosas]" can also be
correct with an "aspectual" meaning for "se".
https://www.espanolavanzado.com/gramatica-tips/2253-vease-significado
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
I think the singular is called for here, because plural/singular
doesn't refer to what should be seen (in the accusative), but to the
potential seeer(s).
Could be either. See my reply to wugi.
("See-er" is probably the best way to handle that.)
wugi wrote:
Op 16/05/2024 om 13:25 schreef jerryfriedman:..
wugi wrote:
How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit down,
siéntese.
Your brother-in-law uses the formal form with you? None of my
business, but I'd be interested to know where he's from.
Argentina. Between the various in-laws the formal form is.. Well, another surprise. As I occasionally mention,
customary, at least in my wife's family.
formal-informal is *the* hardest thing for me in both French and
Spanish.
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative
uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses
the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to..
say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative
uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses
the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to..
say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
On 17/05/24 08:52, jerryfriedman wrote:
wugi wrote:
Op 16/05/2024 om 13:25 schreef jerryfriedman:..
wugi wrote:
.. Well, another surprise. As I occasionally mention,How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit down,
siéntese.
Your brother-in-law uses the formal form with you? None of my
business, but I'd be interested to know where he's from.
Argentina. Between the various in-laws the formal form is
customary, at least in my wife's family.
formal-informal is *the* hardest thing for me in both French and
Spanish.
A week or so ago I went to see a French film (The Taste of Things), and
was struck by the fact that formal pronouns were used by everyone --
even between man and wife.
Most of the people in the film were good
friends of long standing. The only "tu" I heard in the entire movie was
when a young girl was being addressed.
A week or so ago I went to see a French film (The Taste of Things), and
was struck by the fact that formal pronouns were used by everyone --
even between man and wife.
Such things can change rapidly. The formerly common practice of
addressing acquaintances or colleagues by first name and formal
pronouns ("Hamburger Sie") disappeared from German usage over the
course of the 1980s or thereabouts.
A week or so ago I went to see a French film (The Taste of Things), and
was struck by the fact that formal pronouns were used by everyone --
even between man and wife.
The setting is 1880s France. I know that formality in language was
greater then, but I was surprised by the extent of it.
Ulf_Kutzner wrote:
A week or so ago I went to see a French film (The Taste of Things), and
was struck by the fact that formal pronouns were used by everyone --
even between man and wife.
In English there is nothing but the formal pronoun.
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to
say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception
in
portuguese is sê/és.
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception
in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception
in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
??
Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives.
I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as
the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception
in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
??
Antonio Marques wrote:
Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives. >>>>>>>I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as >>>>>> the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception
in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
??
Maybe all my courses were misleading as is >https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ser#Conjugation_5 ???
Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:33:58 +0000: Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]>
scribeva:
Antonio Marques wrote:
Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives. >>>>>>>>I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>>>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as >>>>>>> the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to
come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception >>>>> in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
??
Maybe all my courses were misleading as is >>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ser#Conjugation_5 ???
I think it is correct. The point is that for regular verb, and almost
all irregular verbs, 3rd person affirmative imperative has the same
forms as the 3rd person conjunctive, and the 2nd person affirmative imperative has the same form as the 3rd person present indicative.
Except for ser: the 2nd imperative is 'sê', not 'e'.
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:33:58 +0000: Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]>
scribeva:
Antonio Marques wrote:
Ulf_Kutzner <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques wrote:
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Thu, 16 May 2024 11:33:20 +0000: [email protected]..
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
In Spanish and Portuguese, the polite/formal non-negating imperative >>>>>>>>>> uses the same forms as the subjunctive. The informal imperative uses >>>>>>>>>> the indicative. So in fact many imperatives _are_ subjunctives. >>>>>>>>>I agree with all that for Spanish, except that the informal
imperative is different from the indicative--it loses the
final "s", as in your example below and in a few verbs (ser
and ir, anyway) it has a different form.
Sorry, my description was inaccurate and therefore unclear: I meant to >>>>>>>> say that the second person singular imperative has the same form as >>>>>>>> the _third_ person present indicative.
Got it. The exceptions, all of which I should have been able to >>>>>>> come up with, are decir, ir, hacer, poner, salir, ser, tener,
venir. (I'm pretty sure I'd be able to come up with them when
I needed them.)
https://baselang.com/blog/basic-grammar/spanish-commands/
Curious, I'd never thought about that, and I think the only exception >>>>>> in
portuguese is sê/és.
Still, és has nothing to do with 3rd person.
??
Maybe all my courses were misleading as is >>>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ser#Conjugation_5 ???
I think it is correct. The point is that for regular verb, and almost
all irregular verbs, 3rd person affirmative imperative has the same
forms as the 3rd person conjunctive, and the 2nd person affirmative
imperative has the same form as the 3rd person present indicative.
Except for ser: the 2nd imperative is 'sê', not 'e'.
Not even 'é'.
Regards, ULF
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 142:51:28 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,998 |
| Messages: | 6,517,455 |