Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 26 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 28 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Hello, again. I was wondering how one would form a negative clause with most copulative verbs.
In the olden days, negatives in English clauses were formed much as in Latin or French; to wit, one would place the negative adverb immediately following the verb.
eg. "I know not where she went." or "She loves me not."
Over the years, this usage fell out of favor, and using finite forms of "to do"—as an auxilliary verb—became the preferred way to form negative statements with action-verb clauses.
eg. "I do not know where she went." or "She does not love me."
Curiously, however, the old usage persists in clauses formed with "to be."
eg. "I am not that happy to see you." or "It truly is not a sacrifice to help you."
(Not even the most progressive English speaker would write "I do not be that happy to see you." or "It truly does not be a sacrifice to help you.")
I'm curious, however, as to whether "to be" is unique among English verbs in this sense, or this applies to other copulative (non-action) verbs. Pine ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
eg.
I'll admit, that last one at least sounds pretty awkward to 21st-century ears, but what about some of the others? In formal settings, may some of these still be useful? Or is the modern rule for copulative verbs (except "to be") identical to that of action verbs? Pine ( talk) 07:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the responses!
Perhaps one simply must ensure that the copulative verbs in question are inchoate if he wishes to avoid using the supporting "do." The "became not a doctor" clause clearly does not work since the "becoming" is understood as already having happened.
At any rate, I must admit to not having realized that one now always forms the negative imperative (some call it jussive) mood in English with the "do not" auxiliary. Thank you for sharing that, JIP!
———The construction was common at the time of the King James Bible, but modern readers "wist not" (sorry, wrong tense).———I believe that the correct form (back in Jacobian times) would have been "wite not." ("do not wit," nowadays.) Pine ( talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
————Yes, or "wit not" or "witt not". I retained the joking "wist not" in the wrong tense because "wist not" occurs nine times in the KJV, so has entered the language of those familiar with that version, and is often used (wrongly) in the present. The old conjugation is not commonly known except the form retained in "to wit". Dbfirs 07:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This always sounds like a very forced and clunky construction when I see it used "Person X welcomed a new baby last week". Where does this come from? It almost sounds like a bad translation to me! QmunkE ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
KageTora, I don't agree with the comments about "enjoy." This word meant "to have for one's use, benefit or lot: experience" before it meant "to take pleasure or satisfaction in." (Definitions from the Merriam-Webster, which gives "enjoyed great success" as an example.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." 96.46.201.210 ( talk) 07:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
hello,
English language is sometimes confusing, especially for German-speakers. In German grammar it is very easy to nominalise verbs; you just need to put the article ahead verb. In English grammar you sometimes use prefixes, for example -dom or -ness (boredom, laziness, etc). But sometimes I can't do it for other words. I want to translate the following sentence:
I would translate it as follows:
Is this correct? Is there any other synonym for "das Gehörte", "the heard" maybe? -- ♫GoP♫ T C N 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Finnish also has the same easy way of nominalisating verbs as German. The example sentence would be:
Where both "koettu" and "kuultu" (here shown in the accusative case "kuullun") are nominalised verbs, meaning exactly the same as "das Erlebte" and "das Gehörte" in German. I find it strange that English does not have this easy construction. JIP | Talk 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know it sounds long-winded to foreigners who want to nominalise everything but Angr's translation "What he had experienced overshadowed what he had heard" really does sound much more natural.
There is no translation for "das Gehörte" because you cant nominalise a perfecr passive participle and I'm not sure "experience" is really quite the same as "das Erlebte". Better to stick to a verbal construction with "what..." (=that which) and paraphrase it as best you can.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 ( talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, are there any Polish native speakers reading along here that could update pl:Tab Two so it matches the information from Tab Two or de:Tab Two? Kind regards and thanks in advance, 188.105.123.98 ( talk) 13:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any significant Latin texts available online that have yet to be translated? I'm keen to start just as an exercise (and of course I would make my work available for others to use/ improve on). Also (extra question while I'm here), in relation to a previous question that popped up here a few weeks/months ago, when the Vatican etc. has to coin a new Latin word, why don't they just use the modern Italian? IBE ( talk) 16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the use of Italian, I don't know much about it, but declensions can always be added. Computer, computri etc. Since there is no Latin word for such things, creating one would not be Latin any more than borrowing from Italian would. And even Arabic borrows from English, yet there is scarcely a language so well formed for creating new vocabulary. Still, if there is such a reaction against nova latina italianata (?), even here on Wikipedia, I dread to think what the Vatican would say. As for the suggestions, much appreciated, but I can't find any medieval papal letters by googling - Adam, are they available online? It's not entirely for fun, as I want to contribute (in my humble way) to something of lasting use, but also I want to build my own writing fluency through the exercise. I could do a page at a time of that long one, but I'd rather take the shortest medieval papal letter I can find, and do it in full. IBE ( talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 26 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 28 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Hello, again. I was wondering how one would form a negative clause with most copulative verbs.
In the olden days, negatives in English clauses were formed much as in Latin or French; to wit, one would place the negative adverb immediately following the verb.
eg. "I know not where she went." or "She loves me not."
Over the years, this usage fell out of favor, and using finite forms of "to do"—as an auxilliary verb—became the preferred way to form negative statements with action-verb clauses.
eg. "I do not know where she went." or "She does not love me."
Curiously, however, the old usage persists in clauses formed with "to be."
eg. "I am not that happy to see you." or "It truly is not a sacrifice to help you."
(Not even the most progressive English speaker would write "I do not be that happy to see you." or "It truly does not be a sacrifice to help you.")
I'm curious, however, as to whether "to be" is unique among English verbs in this sense, or this applies to other copulative (non-action) verbs. Pine ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
eg.
I'll admit, that last one at least sounds pretty awkward to 21st-century ears, but what about some of the others? In formal settings, may some of these still be useful? Or is the modern rule for copulative verbs (except "to be") identical to that of action verbs? Pine ( talk) 07:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the responses!
Perhaps one simply must ensure that the copulative verbs in question are inchoate if he wishes to avoid using the supporting "do." The "became not a doctor" clause clearly does not work since the "becoming" is understood as already having happened.
At any rate, I must admit to not having realized that one now always forms the negative imperative (some call it jussive) mood in English with the "do not" auxiliary. Thank you for sharing that, JIP!
———The construction was common at the time of the King James Bible, but modern readers "wist not" (sorry, wrong tense).———I believe that the correct form (back in Jacobian times) would have been "wite not." ("do not wit," nowadays.) Pine ( talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
————Yes, or "wit not" or "witt not". I retained the joking "wist not" in the wrong tense because "wist not" occurs nine times in the KJV, so has entered the language of those familiar with that version, and is often used (wrongly) in the present. The old conjugation is not commonly known except the form retained in "to wit". Dbfirs 07:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This always sounds like a very forced and clunky construction when I see it used "Person X welcomed a new baby last week". Where does this come from? It almost sounds like a bad translation to me! QmunkE ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
KageTora, I don't agree with the comments about "enjoy." This word meant "to have for one's use, benefit or lot: experience" before it meant "to take pleasure or satisfaction in." (Definitions from the Merriam-Webster, which gives "enjoyed great success" as an example.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." 96.46.201.210 ( talk) 07:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
hello,
English language is sometimes confusing, especially for German-speakers. In German grammar it is very easy to nominalise verbs; you just need to put the article ahead verb. In English grammar you sometimes use prefixes, for example -dom or -ness (boredom, laziness, etc). But sometimes I can't do it for other words. I want to translate the following sentence:
I would translate it as follows:
Is this correct? Is there any other synonym for "das Gehörte", "the heard" maybe? -- ♫GoP♫ T C N 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Finnish also has the same easy way of nominalisating verbs as German. The example sentence would be:
Where both "koettu" and "kuultu" (here shown in the accusative case "kuullun") are nominalised verbs, meaning exactly the same as "das Erlebte" and "das Gehörte" in German. I find it strange that English does not have this easy construction. JIP | Talk 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know it sounds long-winded to foreigners who want to nominalise everything but Angr's translation "What he had experienced overshadowed what he had heard" really does sound much more natural.
There is no translation for "das Gehörte" because you cant nominalise a perfecr passive participle and I'm not sure "experience" is really quite the same as "das Erlebte". Better to stick to a verbal construction with "what..." (=that which) and paraphrase it as best you can.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 ( talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, are there any Polish native speakers reading along here that could update pl:Tab Two so it matches the information from Tab Two or de:Tab Two? Kind regards and thanks in advance, 188.105.123.98 ( talk) 13:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any significant Latin texts available online that have yet to be translated? I'm keen to start just as an exercise (and of course I would make my work available for others to use/ improve on). Also (extra question while I'm here), in relation to a previous question that popped up here a few weeks/months ago, when the Vatican etc. has to coin a new Latin word, why don't they just use the modern Italian? IBE ( talk) 16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the use of Italian, I don't know much about it, but declensions can always be added. Computer, computri etc. Since there is no Latin word for such things, creating one would not be Latin any more than borrowing from Italian would. And even Arabic borrows from English, yet there is scarcely a language so well formed for creating new vocabulary. Still, if there is such a reaction against nova latina italianata (?), even here on Wikipedia, I dread to think what the Vatican would say. As for the suggestions, much appreciated, but I can't find any medieval papal letters by googling - Adam, are they available online? It's not entirely for fun, as I want to contribute (in my humble way) to something of lasting use, but also I want to build my own writing fluency through the exercise. I could do a page at a time of that long one, but I'd rather take the shortest medieval papal letter I can find, and do it in full. IBE ( talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)