TAC 2017-2018 dEhiN

[dEhiN]

Done. (Est-ce qu'il y a un seul mot à pour dire ça en français ? Ou, une phrase simple ? )

Hum, j'en suis pas sûr. Probablement "Voilà qui est fait" ou "C'est fait".

La phrase "c'est fini", elle marche aussi?

Merci. Ouais mon ami, qui me l'a enseigné, m'a aussi donné le même avis. J'ai trouvé que cette phrase est utilisée quand on veut insister sur le fait que l'action se passe dans le moment présent.

Pourquoi tu as changé l'imparfait à le passe composé? Pour moi, « je trouvais » est comme (ce que?) je dis « I've found » en anglais, en signifient un truc que j'ai vu plusieurs fois dans le passe. Donc, parce que il y avait plusieurs fois, on doit utiliser l'imparfait, non?

[dEhiN]

Anki for Apr. 1:

[flag=]haw[/flag] mahalo! thank you!
[flag=]haw[/flag] mahalo thanks; gratitude; to thank
[flag=]haw[/flag] 'a'ole no; not

[flag=]sv[/flag] mammor -- mammorna mothers; moms
[flag=]sv[/flag] man [pro.] impersonal you
[flag=]sv[/flag] min my
[flag=]sv[/flag] aldrig never
[flag=]sv[/flag] vem? who?
[flag=]sv[/flag] en faster -- fastern paternal aunt
[flag=]sv[/flag] en syster -- syster sister
[flag=]sv[/flag] att ringa to call; to phone
[flag=]sv[/flag] pappor -- papporna fathers; dads
[flag=]sv[/flag] Har du en bror? Do you have a brother?
[flag=]sv[/flag] man vet aldrig you never know
[flag=]sv[/flag] gift/gift/gifta/gifta married [indef.com.sing./indef.neut.sing./indef.pl./def.]
[flag=]sv[/flag] bor live/lives [pres. tense ind.]
[flag=]sv[/flag] en farbror -- farbrodern paternal uncle
[flag=]sv[/flag] en dotter -- dottern daughter
[flag=]sv[/flag] där there
[flag=]sv[/flag] det där är min syster och min bror there is my sister and my brother
[flag=]sv[/flag] han är gift med hon he is married to her
[flag=]sv[/flag] en släkting -- släktingen relative
[flag=]sv[/flag] en familj -- familjen family
[flag=]sv[/flag] en pappa -- pappan father; dad
[flag=]sv[/flag] det där there; (lit.) it there
[flag=]sv[/flag] en son -- sonen son

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] நாளை tomorrow
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] -உக்கு/-க்கு [dat. suffix]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உங்கள you [acc. sing. pol.; acc. pl.]

[Dormouse559]

La phrase "c'est fini", elle marche aussi?

Non, ça veut plutôt dire "It's finished" ou "It's over".

Pourquoi tu as changé l'imparfait à pour le passé composé? Pour moi, « je trouvais » est comme (ce que?) je dis (est équivalent à) « I've found » en anglais, en signifiant un truc que j'ai vu plusieurs fois dans le passé. Donc, parce que ça se passait plusieurs fois, on doit utiliser l'imparfait, non?

Si, l'imparfait désigne une action qui n'est plus pertinente dans le présent. Le present perfect en anglais indique que l'action est toujours pertinente dans le présent, alors le passé composé convient mieux.

[Osias]

[flag=]sv[/flag] man [pro.] impersonal you

Wait, what?

I understand English has an impersonal you, like Portuguese, that is when you say "when you're pregnant" but actually meaning "when one's is pregnant". But if "man" is a different word, isn't it equivalent to "one" in this sense?

[Dormouse559]

"One" and generic you in English have the same meaning, so either could be a good translation for man, depending on the context.

[Osias]

Yes, I agree.

My question is if "man" is also called "impersonal you".

[Dormouse559]

I don't think so. It'd be called an impersonal pronoun, like generic you. I don't think that's what dEhiN meant to imply "man" is called "impersonal you".

[dEhiN]

Pour moi, « je trouvais » est comme (ce que?) je dis (est équivalent à) « I've found » en anglais

Could you explain the orange part please? Should I have added ce que? Or are you saying I should've replaced the whole phrase est comme je dis with est équivalent à?

Si, l'imparfait désigne une action qui n'est plus pertinente dans le présent. Le present perfect en anglais indique que l'action est toujours pertinente dans le présent, alors le passé composé convient mieux.

So passé composé can as an equivalent to the present perfect? I think of passé composé as being a single action that happened in the past, or an action that happened at a single point in the past and is now finished. While the imparfait is an action that happened in the past for a period of time. I never considered whether the imparfait implies that in the present the action is finished, or still continuing.

I don't think so. It'd be called an impersonal pronoun, like generic you. I don't think that's what dEhiN meant to imply "man" is called "impersonal you".

Johanna was the one who taught me Swedish man, which normally means English "man", can mean impersonal you. I guess generic you could also work? The phrase man vet aldrig translates to "you never know". I'm not sure if in English the "you" in that phrase would be considered generic or impersonal.

[vijayjohn]

Is there a difference between generic and impersonal in this context anyway? I would've thought they were the same thing.

[dEhiN]

[flag=]pt-br[/flag] o julho July
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] falar to speak; to tell
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] a sopa soup
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] a casa home; house
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] um/uma a/an; one [m./f.]
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] o/a jornalista journalist [m./f.]
[flag=]pt-br[/flag] partir to leave; to divide

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] பழம் fruit
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] வேலை work [n.; v. root]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] என்னை me [acc.]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உயிர்மெயி எழுத்து consonant + vowel; (lit.) soul-body letter
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] எனக்கு to/for me
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] சவால்விடு challenge [v. root]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] மெயி எழுத்து consonant; (lit.) body letter
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உயிர் எழுத்து vowel; (lit.) soul letter
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] என்னுடைய பெயர் David my name is David
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] சொல் tell [v. root]; word
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] என் [1st pers. sing. pro.]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உன் [2nd pers. sing. cas. pro.]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] -ஐ [acc. suffix]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] சவால் challenge
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] தூள் powder
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] செய் do; make; perform [v. root]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] -கள் [pl. suffix]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உன்னுடைய பெயர் என்ன? what's your name? [sing. cas.]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உன்னுடைய your [sing. cas.]
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] கப்பல் ship
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] என்ன? what?
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] எழுத்து letter; character
[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] கொஞ்சம் கொஞ்சம் bit by bit

A couple of notes:

1) Wiktionary says that partir in Portuguese can mean "to go away; to leave; to depart" and "to divide; to split". I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of it meaning "to divide", and assumed it only meant "to leave" like in French.

2) For anyone learning Tamil, தூள் /n̪uːɭ/ means powder and நூல் /n̪uːl/ means thread (as in needle and thread). So the only difference there is a retroflex l versus an alveolar l.

3) I find it cool how Tamil sees a consonant as a "body letter" and a vowel as a "soul letter". I also find it intriguing that a consonant+vowel combination (remember Tamil is an abugida) is called a "soul-body letter" with the word for soul coming first. My (English? Western?) brain sees those combination letters as the consonant or body coming first, and the soul or vowel being an extension of or attachment to it. But maybe I'm overthinking.

PS. The next 6.5 days will be full of all Portuguese vocab. So Osias, I'll be counting on you to help me with any errors and such. And following that will be 7.5 days of all French, at which point I'll be counting on you, Dormouse. Vijay, of course I know you'll chime in whenever you're able to, but I also know you're more busy now with your job. And Aurinia, if you're reading this, I'd be ever grateful if you would review the Swedish cards I recently learned. Thanks guys for all your input and chatter. It keeps me motivated!

[dEhiN]

Is there a difference between generic and impersonal in this context anyway? I would've thought they were the same thing.

Yeah I would think so too, at least in this context and in English also (as far as I can recall; can't think of an example where impersonal you and generic you or impersonal one and generic one refer to different things). Osias used both terms, so I went with it.

[vijayjohn]

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] உயிர் எழுத்து vowel; (lit.) soul letter

How odd, I thought உயிர் meant 'life', not 'soul'.

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] சொல் tell [v. root]; word

Interesting, in Malayalam, as a noun, this means something more like 'proverb'. As a verb, it means 'narrate' in Malayalam, but I knew about that difference already. Doesn't it also mean 'say' in Tamil?

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] சவால் challenge

I'm guessing this is borrowed from Hindi, which borrowed it from Persian, which borrowed it from Arabic سُؤَال suʾāl 'question'. (It means 'question' in the other two languages, too).

[flag=]ta-lk[/flag] எழுத்து letter; character

This can also mean the kind of letter you send in the mail (both in Tamil and in Malayalam).

I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of it meaning "to divide"

I don't know how you could possibly encounter it with this meaning unless you read something really math-nerdy in Portuguese. If you're interested, though, I do have an English (hardcover) translation of a certain Brazilian (fairly math-nerdy) novel, and IpseDixit once shared a PDF file of the original.

For anyone learning Tamil, தூள் /n̪uːɭ/ means powder and நூல் /n̪uːl/ means thread (as in needle and thread). So the only difference there is a retroflex l versus an alveolar l.

But if 'powder' is தூள், then that should be [t̪uːɭ], not [n̪uːɭ], and [n̪uːɭ] would be நூள், right?

Thanks guys for all your input and chatter. It keeps me motivated!

No problem, I'm glad to hear it's been helping!

[Dormouse559]

Could you explain the orange part please? Should I have added ce que? Or are you saying I should've replaced the whole phrase est comme je dis with est équivalent à?

Sorry for being unclear. You should just use "est équivalent à".

So passé composé can as an equivalent to the present perfect? I think of passé composé as being a single action that happened in the past, or an action that happened at a single point in the past and is now finished.

Yes, the passé composé can translate the present perfect. In fact, it's the usual French verb form for translating the present perfect. EDIT: The biggest exception is probably when "since" is involved (e.g. "I've lived here since 1992."); in that case, the present tense is often preferred in French ("Je vis ici depuis 1992.").

You are right that actions expressed with passé composé are finished and viewed as points, but so are actions expressed with the present perfect. The present perfect also means that the completed action is relevant to the present. The passé composé doesn't have a specific implication about an action's relevance. The two forms are a pretty good fit.

While the imparfait is an action that happened in the past for a period of time. I never considered whether the imparfait implies that in the present the action is finished, or still continuing.

Well, actions in the imparfait are always finished (ignoring conditional constructions). Since as you point out, the imparfait describes an action as a duration, it doesn't match the present perfect so well.

On the fact that you saw how être en train de is used multiple times, I can see how you interpreted that as fitting the imparfait. I think part of the issue is that what happened isn't habitual per se. It's more like multiple singular points.

Is there a difference between generic and impersonal in this context anyway? I would've thought they were the same thing.

Two terms for the same thing. I just use the one I learned first.

[IpseDixit]

How come you've learned such a basic thing as um/uma so late?

[Osias]

1) Wiktionary says that partir in Portuguese can mean "to go away; to leave; to depart" and "to divide; to split". I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of it meaning "to divide", and assumed it only meant "to leave" like in French.

https://www.google.com.br/webhp?sourcei ... +p%C3%A3o&

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=cora ... 05&bih=825


https://biblia.gospelmais.com.br/1-corintios_11:24/

So Osias, I'll be counting on you to help me with any errors and such.

Estamos aí!

[Aurinĭa]

[flag=]sv[/flag] min/mitt/mina my [com.sing./neut.sing./pl.]

You added all the forms for gift, so I assumed you might want them for min as well.

[flag=]sv[/flag] en faster -- fastern paternal aunt
[flag=]sv[/flag] en syster --systern sister
[flag=]sv[/flag] en dotter -- dottern daughter

Syster - systern works just like faster - fastern and dotter - dottern. Perhaps it was just a typo, but in that case you should check whether you have the same typo on the Anki card.

[flag=]sv[/flag] han är gift med henne he is married to her

After a preposition you need the oblique form (henne) instead of the subject form (hon).

[Johanna]

[flag=]sv[/flag] en syster -- syster sister

en syster - systern

[flag=]sv[/flag] en farbror -- farbrodern paternal uncle

That's a tad bit formal, or at least the definite form is. The less formal version is farbrorn, but then again, you don't use the definite form much at all so I can't say which is actually more common.

[flag=]sv[/flag] han är gift med hon he is married to her

Han är gift med henne.


subject - object

jag - mig
du - dig
han - honom
hon - henne
den - den
det - det

vi - oss
ni - er
de - dem

You can hear han and hon used as object forms in colloquially spoken Swedish though

[flag=]sv[/flag] det där there; (lit.) it there

Nope, it means "that".

den där / det där = that
de där = those

den här / det här = this
de här = these

And of course it also means that the translation of the sentence above containing det där is wrong too...

[dEhiN]

I decided to stop doing Anki. I got behind by several days, and suddenly felt tired of reviewing and typing the same shit every day. Or at least, it felt like that. I think my getting tired of using Anki goes back to a reason I shared earlier on here: I wanted to have in my Anki database every single word I knew in every single foreign language (for me, that's apart from English) I'd ever studied. That's also why I, back in January, added a bunch of words I already knew from old notebooks. I think this desire was fuelled by my perfectionism, or at least a thought that if I essentially compiled a dictionary, I would never forget a word again...ever!

I remember several of us had a discussion on this, and some on here commented how they find seeing a word in context a bunch of times more useful. I think now I would agree with them, that I learn and remember a word more easily when I see it a few times in context. Anyway, so I suspended all my Anki cards, reset them, and put them in the Storage deck.

Which means for the past week or so I haven't been really doing any language study.

However, I did register today for school for the spring semester. I decided in the end to take 3 language courses: French level 5 (out of 9), Spanish level 3 (out of 6), and American Sign Language level 1 (out of 4).

They start the second and third week of May.

I have the textbook that's used for the first 2 levels of Spanish - I bought it used from someone who took the class before - and I'm contemplating going through it in the month I have before class starts. It's written in, which drives my somewhat OCD tendencies a little nuts! Oh well.

[vijayjohn]

It's written in, which drives my somewhat OCD tendencies a little nuts! Oh well.

When I was in (middle) school, sometimes at least, we had to check our textbooks at the beginning of the year (even before our actual first day of classes) for writing in it and such and then report which pages had writing/dog-eared corners/whatever to convince them to give us a copy that didn't.

[dEhiN]

It's written in, which drives my somewhat OCD tendencies a little nuts! Oh well.

When I was in (middle) school, sometimes at least, we had to check our textbooks at the beginning of the year (even before our actual first day of classes) for writing in it and such and then report which pages had writing/dog-eared corners/whatever to convince them to give us a copy that didn't.

I was buying this used, so I don't quite think I can request a new copy. I just foolishly assumed everyone was like me in that if they were selling their used textbook, they had made sure not to write in it! If I write in a textbook, I keep the book.