"Holes" in languages (Philological Room) Language Learning Forum

"Holes" in languages
Tags: Multilingual \| Grammar
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Philological Room

26 messages over 4 pages: 1 2 3 4 Next >>

simonov
Senior Member
Portugal
Joined 5590 days ago
222 posts - 438 votes

Speaks: English

Message 17 of 26

31 October 2010 at 11:54am | IP Logged

Iversen wrote:

The only way an adjective can be defective in English is when it lacks comparation (synthetic and analytic). But in a language where you can be more square than square it is difficult to keep comparation down.

A French defective 'adjective': "feu" (meaning dead). But of course it is just a substantive that has been used in the slot assigned to adjectives.

To my mind defective means missing something that should be there. Take "arms" (in the sense of "weapons") for instance: no singular "arm", we have to borrow "weapon".
Another example, taken from Latin, the verb "to learn - discere". It has no past participle form (learnt) and must borrow from "imparare". So its principal parts are as follows:
discere (to learn), disco (I learn), didici (I learnt), "imparatum" (learnt).

That said, words like "feu - deceased, verstorben" are not defective because their meaning doesn't allow for any kind of gradation. You're either deceased or you're not, full stop. The same applies to lots of adjectives and other participles, present ones too, like "missing" as in "a missing soldier".

As for "dead", you can be dead tired, you can also be more dead than alive, but here we don't refer to the "really deceased, defunct" state of someone/something. I then, out of curiosity, googled "deadest" and, surprise, surprise, 64,000 results. So, unlike "deceased", "dead" is definitely not a defective!
3 persons have voted this message useful

clumsy
Octoglot
Senior Member
Poland
lang-8.com/6715Registered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5179 days ago
1116 posts - 1367 votes

Speaks: Polish*, English, Japanese, Korean, French, Mandarin, Italian, Vietnamese
Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swedish
Studies: Danish, Dari, Kirundi

Message 18 of 26

31 October 2010 at 1:12pm | IP Logged

powinienem = I should
you cannot say "to shall" in Polish.

I have seen once in a dictionary (in language textbook) miec powinnosc.
But I have never seen it used!

Edited by clumsy on 31 October 2010 at 1:12pm
2 persons have voted this message useful

jeff_lindqvist
Diglot
Moderator
SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6910 days ago
4250 posts - 5711 votes

Speaks: Swedish*, English
Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Irish, French
Personal Language Map

Message 19 of 26

04 November 2010 at 1:06am | IP Logged

Ari wrote:

Although, come to think of it, the Swedish equivalent of "must" ("måste") also lacks an infinitive. In the future tense you have to switch to "att behöva".

Finland-Swedish actually has an infinitive - "att måsta".

Språkrådet
1 person has voted this message useful

Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7157 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes

20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

Message 20 of 26

04 November 2010 at 2:46am | IP Logged

Expressing obligation or compulsion in Finnish is built with a less than obvious construction.

I have to leave.
Minun täytyy lähteä. (literally: Of-me it-is-necessary to-leave)

I do not have to leave.
Ei minun tarvitse lähteä. (literally: It-not of-me requires to-leave)

Finnish doesn't use: *Ei minun täyty lähteä. The negative of "täytyy" (literally "it's necessary") is "ei tarvitse" (literally "it requires not") and NOT "*ei täyty".)

While we're on the topic of negating a certain action in Finnish, the negative verb (stemming from a reconstructed ancestor of *e-) in some Uralic languages has become defective in varying degrees. In Estonian, negative actions in indicative moods resembles somewhat more to how we negate sentences in English by using an uninflected particle or combination (do not, not, no) when compared to other related languages such as Finnish or Northern Saami. These relatives of Estonian still conjugate the verb distinctively for all persons.

I am coming || (Ma) tulen (Cf. Finnish: (Minä) tulen)
You (singular) are coming || (Sa) tuled (Cf. Finnish: (Sinä) tulet)

I am not coming || Ma ei tule (Cf. Finnish: (Minä) eN tule)
You are not coming || Sa ei tule (Cf. Finnish: (Sinä) eT tule)

I have come || (Ma) olen tulnud (Cf. Finnish: (Minä) olen tullut)
You have come || (Sa) oled tulnud (Cf. Finnish: (Sinä) olet tullut)

I have not come || Ma ei ole tulnud (Cf. Finnish: (Minä) eN ole tullut)
You have not come || Sa ei ole tulnud (Cf. Finnish: (Sinä) eT ole tullut)

Notice how Estonian uses "ei" to indicate negation no matter the person and in more than one tense. As a consequence Estonian almost always requires the personal pronoun (i.e. ma, sa) in order to make it clear enough who is doing the negating. In Finnish, using the personal pronoun (i.e. minä, sinä) would not be quite as frequent (except for reasons of emphasis) since the identity of who is doing the negating would be clear enough from the ending attached to the negative verb "e-").

However the negative verb e- is also treated as defective in Finnish despite the examples above for the present tense. To express a negated past action in Finnish (and Estonian for that matter), one effectively combines the negative verb in the present tense with a past participle and even sometimes with a stem or participle of the verb "to be". The negative verb e- doesn't take on dedicated suffixes marking the past tenses which could avoid the need for lengthier constructions with participles or auxillary verbs.

Estonian and Finnish also use a different stem (är(g) and äl- respectively) as the negative verb for imperative, thus further diminishing the role of the negative verb e- in these languages.
1 person has voted this message useful

Mikael84
Bilingual Pentaglot
Groupie
Peru
Joined 5301 days ago
76 posts - 116 votes

Speaks: French*, Finnish*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Arabic (classical), German, Russian

Message 21 of 26

04 November 2010 at 4:53am | IP Logged

Chung wrote:

"Ei täyty" might not exist but I have seen "ei täydy" many times (although not as common as "ei tarvitse").
1 person has voted this message useful

Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6012 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes

Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

Message 22 of 26

08 November 2010 at 12:48pm | IP Logged

simonov wrote:

To my mind defective means missing something that should be there. Take "arms" (in the sense of "weapons") for instance: no singular "arm", we have to borrow "weapon".

It's even worse than that. You can "bear arms", but while there's no singular "arm" there is[/is] such a thing as a "sidearm".

Languages are like nets -- there's more holes than string, and neither would be much use without those holes!
1 person has voted this message useful

simonov
Senior Member
Portugal
Joined 5590 days ago
222 posts - 438 votes

Speaks: English

Message 23 of 26

08 November 2010 at 5:04pm | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

simonov wrote:

To my mind defective means missing something that should be there. Take "arms" (in the sense of "weapons") for instance: no singular "arm", we have to borrow "weapon".

It's even worse than that. You can "bear arms", but while there's no singular "arm" there is[/is] such a thing as a "sidearm".
Languages are like nets -- there's more holes than string, and neither would be much use without those holes!

You forgot "a firearm" (still in use)! Not that it matters, my point was about plain "arms" being defective. Now to really complicate matters: there is a singular "arm" meaning "weapon" in the fixed expression "side arm" (two words). Therefore "arms" are not completerly defective, there's a tiny loophole left for them to be it.

Now what I don't understand is your last paragraph. Care to elucidate?
Of course a net wouldn't be a net without them holes, but a language would still be a language, holes or no holes.
You might call Greek defective because it doesn't have an infinitive. Well, it gets by just fine without one. No need, no hole!
So, what DID you mean by that cryptic remark?

1 person has voted this message useful

hrhenry
Octoglot
Senior Member
United States
languagehopper.blogs
Joined 5131 days ago
1871 posts - 3642 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish^C2, Italian^C2, Norwegian, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Portuguese
Studies: Polish, Indonesian, Ojibwe

Message 24 of 26

10 November 2010 at 3:09pm | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

simonov wrote:

To my mind defective means missing something that should be there. Take "arms" (in the sense of "weapons") for instance: no singular "arm", we have to borrow "weapon".

English didn't actually borrow "weapon". That's the Germanic word - ie: it was in use prior to our heavy Latin influence. We've borrowed "arms" from Latin.

And I suspect many, many languages have similar influences that have happened over the centuries. Had English speakers chosen to completely disregard its Germanic roots in favor of Latin roots, I'm quite sure that we would have adopted "arm", but have instead chosen either "weapon" or "firearm" - a curious combination of Germanic and Latin (I guess "sidearm" would also qualify as a unique combination of the two).

R.
==

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 26 messages over 4 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.4531 seconds.