Discussion:
French uses "ne" in contexts where English wouldn't use "not". --- (The pleonastic ne)
(too old to reply)
HenHanna
2024-03-12 11:17:01 UTC
Permalink
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.
Hibou
2024-03-12 12:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by HenHanna
French uses "ne" (or its contracted forms) in various situations where
English wouldn't directly translate with "not." [...]
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.

I see that Grevisse, in 'Le bon usage', devotes a good few pages to 'ne'
and negation (Section 973 and onwards). I'm not even going to try to
summarise them (or even read and learn them - à mon avis, la vie est
déjà trop courte).
Christian Weisgerber
2024-03-12 15:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hibou
Post by HenHanna
The pleonastic ne is optional. Sentences are grammatically correct
without it. [...]
"Pleonastic ne" refers to cases such as "Je crains qu'il ne pleuve".
It does not mean the "ne" in "ne..pas", "ne..plus", etc., which is
typically omitted in the spoken language.
Post by Hibou
Il n'a plus d'énergie.
He has no more energy.
/ply/
Post by Hibou
Il a plus d'énergie.
He has more energy.
/plys/
Post by Hibou
'Ne' is quite important there.
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').
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-04 09:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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').
With examples from the 19th century given here:
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/rien#Pronom_ind%C3%A9fini

Regards, ULF
HenHanna
2024-03-12 20:31:57 UTC
Permalink
https://old.reddit.com/r/French/comments/rlkhnr/je_ne_comprends_pas_vs_je_comprends_pas/
French "ne" has almost totally lost its original meaning of 'not'.
Often plain "pas" is used instead of "ne ... pas" and
"jamais" instead of "ne ... jameais" and likewise with other negatives. <<<

Yes. That's a great point!


For 10 points, name the movie and actor... he says in the opening scene [Je comprends pas]

For 20 points, evaluate his French accent in that movie

For 50 points, name the (late 20 century) French philosopher who studied Negation and [but]

For 1000 points, summarize his most famous assertions, theses, or observations.
HenHanna
2024-03-13 06:06:52 UTC
Permalink
______________________________The pleonastic ne
Post by HenHanna
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.
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.)


----------- that 1 and 2 below are both good, and mean the same thing?

1. Dans le parti on ne connaît que des militants.
2. Dans le parti on connaît que des militants.

Both grammatical, and idiomatic?




omg... i'm sounding like You-know-who
Hibou
2024-03-13 08:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by HenHanna
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.
HenHanna
2024-03-13 19:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Hibou wrote: ------- THanks!
Post by Hibou
Post by HenHanna
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?
Post by HenHanna
  Dans le parti on ne connaît que des militants.  (There are only
militants in the party.)
this NE is a pleonastic ne ?
Post by Hibou
(There are only militants in the party.)
In this party one finds only militants. ------ i think i prefer this translation. or this:

In this party there are only militants.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-24 12:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by HenHanna
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".

More such French negation constructions:
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
wugi
2024-03-24 14:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by HenHanna
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".
But never in the position of negation (with or without "ne"), at least
without an article:

J'ai vu personne. Je n'ai vu personne.
=/=
J'ai vu une personne. J'ai vu la personne. J'ai vu cette personne.

and also
=/=
Je n'ai pas vu la/cette personne.

Personne (n') est venu.
=/=
Une personne est venue. La personne est venue. Cette personne est venue.

and also
=/=
La/cette personne n'est pas venue.


Other caveats with jamais, aucun, rien, ...


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.
--
guido wugi
Peter Moylan
2024-03-24 23:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
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".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
jerryfriedman
2024-03-25 04:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
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.
..

I never thought about this when I was learning French, but I imagine
"I'm afraid that he won't come looking for me" is "Je crains qu'il ne
vienne pas me chercher"?

I need to figure out how to turn off autocorrect on this machine.
"Je brains quail..."
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-03-25 17:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
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.
Yes. The origin is of course a Latin negation with conjunctive:
I'm afraid [that]/ may he *not* come.
But the meaning now is "I'm afraid that he comes", so no direct negative
left.
Post by Peter Moylan
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".
There is no direct negative left either, here. The "ne" particle refers
to some tacit term like "rien d'autre":
It is not [anything else] but an au-revoir.
So the "ne" is not a negative WRT "au-revoir" or "moi".
--
guido wugi
Christian Weisgerber
2024-03-24 19:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by HenHanna
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".
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'.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.

Only in literary usage.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-24 19:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Yes.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-03-25 13:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Yes.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
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.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-26 07:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
| "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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Antonio Marques
2024-03-26 14:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
| "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?
They work just the same, the difference is that jamais is terribly marked.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
This https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/jamais
contradicts what you write.
It's unfortunately wrong. Meaning 2 is contradictory and meaning 3 is in
dire need of an example.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://dicionario.priberam.org/jamais
seems to indicate [pt] jamais can mean Dutch [nl] ‘ooit’ and ‘nooit’,
English ‘ever’ and ‘never’.
Meaning 3 is borderline possible as a fossil usage, but I dare say pretty
much every speaker would interpret it as meaning 'never' in that case as
well.
wugi
2024-03-26 16:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
| "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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.)
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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
--
guido wugi
Antonio Marques
2024-03-26 21:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:32 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:02:10 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
| "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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
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!'.
Post by wugi
nadie jamás vino.
ninguém jamais veio.
nobody (n)ever came.
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.
vir (although the subjunctive is pretty much gone in Brazil)

But I doubt anyone would come with any of those 3 sentences, and if they
did the people listening would have to beg for their pardon.
Post by wugi
(same result in sp.)
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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
in most cases one looks at words in close languages and can somewhat
contort one's sprachgefuhl into processing it. I can do it with todavía,
but not with siquiera.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-27 06:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Post by Antonio Marques
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, https://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-27 06:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-03-27 16:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
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
This is as good a time as any other to mention (again) the word _namais_,
that you can find in Galicia, meaning the same as romanian _numai_. I don't
think it's used in Portugal or that speakers would understand it.

(I hear there's _nomás_ in spanish, I don't know how frequent it is.)
Antonio Marques
2024-03-27 16:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Antonio Marques
2024-03-27 22:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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.)
wugi
2024-03-28 10:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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’.
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
"never; (com palavra negativa) ever".
So it has to be always in a negative sense, but then I guess in pt., as
Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:35:11 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Antonio Marques
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.)
Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in
its place.

fr. "ne ... jamais" ==/== "ne ... plus jamais".

sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
--
guido wugi
Peter Moylan
2024-03-28 11:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
wugi
2024-03-28 18:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
--
guido wugi
Antonio Marques
2024-03-28 22:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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)'.
wugi
2024-03-29 10:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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?
Post by Antonio Marques
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".
--
guido wugi
Antonio Marques
2024-03-30 22:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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?
Usually plain 'nunca'. And 'jamais' can also do. As
altura/momento/ocasião/tempo either preceded or followed by nenhum(a), or
followed (not preceded) by algum(a).
Post by wugi
Post by Antonio Marques
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".
What I said is that 'nunca mais' can always refer to the future even if
there was no past instance, but according to context there may be a past
instance or not:

_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'

(In any of the cases, to use plain nunca the rest would have to be edited
to be grammatical.)
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-31 07:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:28:19 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
_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'
Nice examples. They also show how complicated the choice of tenses can
be, even in related languages:
pt: conjuntivo do futuro - presente
en: present - future
nl: present - present.

For in Dutch the sentences could be:
Als je dat in de put gooit, kan niemand het ooit meer terugvinden.
Als je dat vastzet met een band/riem/gordel/touw, raak je het nooit
meer kwijt. (of: kan je het nooit meer kwijtraken).
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 07:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
wugi
2024-03-30 15:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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.
--
guido wugi
jerryfriedman
2024-03-30 16:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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.
Post by wugi
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
--
Jerry Friedman
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 18:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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".
European Portuguese, other that Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish,
tends to place personal pronouns (in the dative and accusative,
anyway, but here it is nominative) after the conjugated verb, not
before, unless there is a "magnet word".
Post by jerryfriedman
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
wugi
2024-04-04 21:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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.
Post by wugi
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?
Post by jerryfriedman
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.
It's kind of a calque of the passive construction with "se".
Se come mucho (or -as) papas en este país.
Potatoes are much eaten in this country.

Save that here we have intransitive and modal (if that's the term I
want) verbs. They are then put in a kind of impersonal passive.

Exactly this we can also do in Dutch:
(transitive "eten", eat)
*Er worden* veel aardappelen *gegeten* in dit land.
[impersonal "pre-subject", instead of
"Veel aardappelen *worden gegeten* in dit land."]

(intransitive "dansen", dance)
*Er wordt* daar vaak *gedanst*.
Se baila a menudo allá.
There's often dancing there.
Post by jerryfriedman
I happen to know of what looks like a reflexive "ser" in
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
Nice example. Which reminds me of the case-problem of objects of verbs
equivalent to "to be" (in Latin they would be in nominatives).

I am I/me?
I am you and you are I/me?
I am not myself.
It is I/me!

Ik ben ik/mij?
Ik ben jij/jou en jij bent ik/mij?
Ik ben mezelf niet. (not: ikzelf)
Ik ben het! Hij is het! (Nl.)
Het ben ik! Het is hij/hem! (Fl.)

God:
Ik ben die ben. I am who (I?) am. Ego sum qui sum. Or wittily:
I am that Ben!
--
guido wugi
jerryfriedman
2024-05-03 14:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
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?
After determining that "similar" isn't a Spanish infinitive :-)
and wondering why "estar" is grouped with "bailar" instead of with
"ser", I'll suggest that a good place for "nor" in English
is before the last item in the list. "Neither ser, estar,
nor bailar, nor anything similar can be reflexive." You can also
have a "nor" before each item, but with four items that sounds
a bit pedantic to me.

Using "similar" as a noun is marginal in English, I'd say, and I
feel it as foreign influence, though I may be wrong. "Nor
similar" with no noun after "similar" doesn't feel right at all.

If you want "nor" before the second item, I think you need to
change the "and" to an "or".

But really, what does "similar" mean here? Anything more than
"verbs that because of their meaning can't be reflexive"? I'd
probably write "'Ser', 'estar', and 'bailar' are among the verbs
that can't be reflexive."
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
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.
It's kind of a calque of the passive construction with "se".
Se come mucho (or -as) papas en este país.
Potatoes are much eaten in this country.
Save that here we have intransitive and modal (if that's the term I
want) verbs. They are then put in a kind of impersonal passive.
(transitive "eten", eat)
*Er worden* veel aardappelen *gegeten* in dit land.
[impersonal "pre-subject", instead of
"Veel aardappelen *worden gegeten* in dit land."]
(intransitive "dansen", dance)
*Er wordt* daar vaak *gedanst*.
Se baila a menudo allá.
There's often dancing there.
"Er" is "there", according to Google Translate?
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
I happen to know of what looks like a reflexive "ser" in
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
Post by wugi
Nice example. Which reminds me of the case-problem of objects of verbs
equivalent to "to be" (in Latin they would be in nominatives).
I am I/me?
I am you and you are I/me?
I am not myself.
It is I/me!
Ik ben ik/mij?
Ik ben jij/jou en jij bent ik/mij?
Ik ben mezelf niet. (not: ikzelf)
Ik ben het! Hij is het! (Nl.)
Het ben ik! Het is hij/hem! (Fl.)
Ik ben die ben. I am who (I?) am.
Certainly "I". Not necessarily "who".
Post by wugi
I am that Ben!
Hebrew neatly doesn't use any personal pronouns there.

'ehyeh 'ăsher 'ehyeh.

(I hope it's clear that the first apostrophe is upper-case.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2024-05-03 23:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
I am that Ben!
I am what I am
And that's all that I am
I'm Popeye the sailor man.

May the fourth be with you.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-04 06:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
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

Regards, ULF
wugi
2024-05-04 16:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Post by wugi
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 over:
(No puede ser uno libre aquí.)
Uno no es libre aquí.
Será libre uno aquí.

Or in that vein...
--
guido wugi
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-04 17:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Post by wugi
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
Post by wugi
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.
(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?


https://literatura766862203.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/valores-de-se.pdf
https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/agle/GestionCitas.asp?IdCita=100584

Regards, ULF
wugi
2024-05-04 19:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
What
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Post by wugi
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
Post by wugi
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...
Is
Se puede ser
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...
--
guido wugi
Antonio Marques
2024-05-08 19:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
What
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Post by wugi
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
Post by wugi
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...
Is
Se puede ser
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.
jerryfriedman
2024-05-09 01:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Antonio Marques wrote:
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
--
Jerry Friedman
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-10 09:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.

Regards, ULF
jerryfriedman
2024-05-10 13:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.
--
Jerry Friedman
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-10 15:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.
Vendem-se is Portuguese, se venden is not.
jerryfriedman
2024-05-10 15:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.
Vendem-se is Portuguese, se venden is not.
I was responding to Antonio's remark "I have no idea if something
similar happens in Spanish." (Capitalization added.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Antonio Marques
2024-05-11 00:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
(...)
I was responding to Antonio's remark "I have no idea if something
similar happens in Spanish." (Capitalization added.)
(That 'proper adjectives' thing doesn't fly with me.)
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-10 15:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.
After reading again: right, it was about comparison,
so I stand corrected.

Regards, ULF
jerryfriedman
2024-05-11 13:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by ulf_kutzner
Post by jerryfriedman
,,,
Post by Antonio Marques
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.
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.
After reading again: right, it was about comparison,
so I stand corrected.
Regards, ULF
Too bad I didn't come to that a minute or two later.
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-05-11 20:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
NB [...]
https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding.
What
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
I think that's pretty rare, though.
Post by wugi
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
Post by wugi
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...
Is
Se puede ser
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
- que se pode encontrar
- *que pode se encontrar (normal br)
- *que pode-se encontrar
- que pode encontrar-se
- 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)
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...
Post by Antonio Marques
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'.)
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.
Post by Antonio Marques
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
See before.
--
guido wugi
Ruud Harmsen
2024-05-12 06:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred.
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!)
Er worden daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
Doesn't sound better to me.
Post by wugi
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
Er wordt daar veel gedanst.
There is much dancing (being often danced) over there.
(Nothing definite is "being" danced...)
*Er _wordt_ daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
There _is_ being eaten "gladly" potatoes over there...
Supposedly ungrammatical, but meseems slowly replacing the former.
Post by Antonio Marques
I have no idea if something similar happens in spanish.
See before.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-05-14 09:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred.
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!)
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]'.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-05-14 10:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Tue, 14 May 2024 09:00:48 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Funnily a similar thing happens in Dutch, in cases where a normal
passive sounds awkward, and a preceding impersonal form is preferred.
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!)
Er worden daar graag aardappelen gegeten.
Doesn't sound better to me.
I thought slapping an 'er' anywhere automatically made anything good dutch.
Of course you're joking. Yet it's good to add a link to the full
description of the various functions and various kinds of "er" in
Dutch: https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/ans0806lingtopic .
Post by Antonio Marques
As wugi says, the one with woordt feels like an exact parallel to our
'vende-se [plural noun]'.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
jerryfriedman
2024-05-15 17:13:58 UTC
Permalink
wugi wrote:

..
Post by wugi
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
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-05-15 21:30:46 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by wugi
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.
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
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!
--
guido wugi
Ruud Harmsen
2024-05-16 07:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
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.
Post by wugi
How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit
down, siéntese.
Yes, formal siéntese, or informal siéntate.
Post by wugi
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
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, https://rudhar.com
jerryfriedman
2024-05-16 11:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
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.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
How many times my brother-in-law has invited me to sit
down, siéntese.
Yes, formal siéntese, or informal siéntate.
..
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-05-16 14:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
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.
--
guido wugi
jerryfriedman
2024-05-16 19:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
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
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-05-16 20:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
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
Ah, OK.
As long as it doesn't become
Si usted quiere, véanse los ejemplos.
Si ustedes quieren, véase el ejemplo.
--
guido wugi
Ruud Harmsen
2024-05-16 19:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by jerryfriedman
I'd add that all
negated imperatives are the same as the subjunctive.
Yes.
Post by jerryfriedman
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 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).
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
jerryfriedman
2024-05-16 22:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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/
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by jerryfriedman
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 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.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2024-05-17 00:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.)
But "seer" is an English word.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Ruud Harmsen
2024-05-17 01:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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/
I see. Most or all of those have regular imperatives in Portuguese, I
see in Wiktionary.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-05-17 08:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by jerryfriedman
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
jerryfriedman
2024-05-16 11:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
Post by wugi
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.
--
Jerry Friedman
wugi
2024-05-16 14:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
..
Post by wugi
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.
Argentina. Between the various in-laws the formal form is customary, at
least in my wife's family.
Post by wugi
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.
Since it comes amongst a variety of spelling errors (notoriously the b/v
and s/c/z divide), I'm not sure how to place it.
--
guido wugi
jerryfriedman
2024-05-16 22:52:16 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by wugi
Post by wugi
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.
..

Well, another surprise. As I occasionally mention, formal-informal
is *the* hardest thing for me in both French and Spanish.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2024-05-17 00:51:01 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
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.
.. Well, another surprise. As I occasionally mention,
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.

The setting is 1880s France. I know that formality in language was
greater then, but I was surprised by the extent of it.

Another surprise for me was the discovery that Baked Alaska is called
"omelette norvégienne" in French. I now see from Wikipedia that that was
the original name.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Ulf_Kutzner
2024-06-01 10:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
..
Post by wugi
Post by jerryfriedman
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.
.. Well, another surprise. As I occasionally mention,
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.
May still be the case for some married couples belonging to bourgeoisie.
Post by Peter Moylan
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.
I heard in person formal pronouns for adressing a grand-father, a
doctor.

Regards, ULF
Bertel Lund Hansen
2024-06-01 13:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
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.
--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark
Kerr-Mudd, John
2024-06-01 18:32:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:51:16 +0200
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Peter Moylan
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.
Quite so, squire.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Christian Weisgerber
2024-06-01 13:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
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.
A few days ago I started watching _Paris Police 1900_ and spouses
also vouvoyer each other there. (Not a crime procedural, btw, as
the title might suggest, but a political thriller.)

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. It was still omnipresent when
I was a kid, but gone by the time I was an adult. _Magnum, P.I._,
which had already aired in dubbed form in the 1980s in Germany, was
re-dubbed a decade later for content reasons, which also offered
the opportunity to use more informal addressing as the previous
usage felt too old-fashioned.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Bertel Lund Hansen
2024-06-01 13:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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.
When I was a child, the informal pronouns were used within the family,
between good friends and between children. My uncle once 'reproached' me
for not using "du" when talking to him.

It changed in the 1968+ turmoil. Today we only use the polite form when
addressing royalty, and even that is changing in an informal context.
--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 18:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
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.
That must be it! Why didn't I think of that?

The construction is less common in Portuguese, but also possible.
Without the hyphen then, I suppose.

"Em Portugal não pode ser se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.

In Portugal one cannot be officially anti-communist.
But it seems one has to be officially anti social democrat.

"Se" is deliberately vague, because in the then context, everybody
knew who he meant: Francisco da Costa Gomes, presidente da República,
and José Pinheiro de Azevedo, primeiro-ministro.
Post by wugi
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-03-31 01:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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?
I don't have a keyboard with me now, I'll provide a transcription when I
do.
Antonio Marques
2024-03-30 15:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio Marques
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)'.
_Nunca mais_ is often also used for emphasis to indicate something
difficult to achieve, e.g. _nunca mais lá chegava_ will mean 'I'd never
get there on my own' or 'it took me far too long to get there', depending
on context.
Peter Moylan
2024-03-30 23:27:14 UTC
Permalink
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 ...
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Antonio Marques
2024-03-28 22:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Its use in Portuguese seems
to be the central point in this discussion.
That's my fault, sorry. Given the groups need traffic....
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-28 12:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-03-28 22:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 06:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 07:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
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/
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 07:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
wugi
2024-03-30 15:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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'.
--
guido wugi
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 18:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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'.
But for the slogan jaMAIS has the right stress, and NUNca hasn't.
OK, now in Portuguese culture, contradictory stresses in music and
language are quite common, so that need not be a problem. What's more
convincing is that all the historic sources clearly have jamais and
not nunca.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
Antonio Marques
2024-03-30 22:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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'.
At no point has anyone in this thread indicated that 'nunca mais' was the
default translation of 'never'.

In this specific case, 'nunca' means 'under no circumstances'.
Antonio Marques
2024-03-30 22:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-31 07:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:16:48 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Yes, but stressed /u/ and unstressed /3/ are not among the ones that
are easily and most commonly compressed in EP (European Portuguese =
pt-PT). The easiest ones are unstressed /u/ spelled <o> and unstressed
/1/ spelled <e>.
Peter Moylan
2024-03-28 23:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Attend enough demonstrations, and you'll hear the almost identical
slogan in English.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-30 06:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:23:17 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Attend enough demonstrations, and you'll hear the almost identical
slogan in English.
How? With what metre?
Peter Moylan
2024-03-30 06:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:23:17 +1100: Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
Attend enough demonstrations, and you'll hear the almost identical
slogan in English.
How? With what metre?
the PEOP-le u-NIT-ed will NE-ver BE de-FEAT-ed.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-03-24 20:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by HenHanna
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".
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.
I had an unfortunate experience with this about 35 years ago, when my
daughter was about 5 and fluent in French (at the level of a 5-year
old, of course). She had succeeded in something and I said (in English)
"You can do anything if you try". Unfortunately she took "anything" to
be equivalent to "rien", with the same negative meaning, and burst into
tears. I'm not sure if I convinced her that "anything" had no negative
implication. 35 years later her French is perfect (much better than
mine); her Spanish also (much better than mine); and her English
effortessly fluent.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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'.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "Jamais" without "ne" does really mean 'ever, sometime, at any time'.
Only in literary usage.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
wugi
2024-03-24 20:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
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.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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'.
D'aucuns remarqueront que dit comme ça, c'est incomplet.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Personne" in French can also mean "person".
In which case it is accompanied by a determiner: une, la, cette, ...
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/nepasre.htm
| "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.
--
guido wugi
Hibou
2024-03-25 06:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by 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.
Manquer un petit rien, ce n'est pas rien.
Ruud Harmsen
2024-03-25 13:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
No: "person n't knows".
Yes, better.
Post by wugi
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.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com
ulf_kutzner
2024-05-03 07:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by wugi
Post by Ruud Harmsen
In fact, the element "ne" expresses the negation, so litterally the
French says "no person knows".
No: "person n't knows".
Yes, better.
In some contexts, by the way, 'ne' is enough to express a negation:

N'ayez crainte.
Je ne saurais vous dire.

(Soft negation?)
https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/DNP0880

Regards, ULF
Loading...