11) Aitu ēd lauva.
''The sheep is being eaten by a/the lion''
Atvainojos, bet es neredzu nekādu pasīvu šeit. Vismaz ne gramatiski. Latviešu valodā mēs varam kārtot vārdus kā gribam, saglabājot teikuma gramatisko nozīmi.
Moderator:Sol Invictus
11) Aitu ēd lauva.
''The sheep is being eaten by a/the lion''
valisj wrote:11) Aitu ēd lauva.
''The sheep is being eaten by a/the lion''
Atvainojos, bet es neredzu nekādu pasīvu šeit. Vismaz ne gramatiski. Latviešu valodā mēs varam kārtot vārdus kā gribam, saglabājot teikuma gramatisko nozīmi.
włóczykij wrote:Mom : Jāniti! Kur ir Putins?
Jānītis : Dārzā !
włóczykij wrote:To Ciuppo2000
Ontology it is not an iintuitive thing. We derive it from our language, which is essentionally ethnic
Sol Invictus wrote:Did anyone read the part of my posts in which I argued that object always takes "passive" (patient) role, hence we only call sentences in which subject (present or not) takes that role? Thus you're right, but not because there was some mysterious semi-passive in Latvian.
The whole thing is dictated by need to bring topic to front, thus if I was teling you that a lion ate a sheep (Lauva apēda aitu) and you didn't hear what the lion did, I might repeat that sentence the other way around (Aitu apēda lauva), while trying to convey exactly the same idea and meaning. And therefore the dog is in the garden (please don't offend Russian president, he hates us allready), not in the garden there is a dog (none of which are passive, what are you getting at now?).
ciuppo2000 wrote:''Saule''!
1) Dārzā ir suns. LVS (Locative Verb Subect)
2) Suns ir dārzā. SVL (Subject Verb Locative)
These examples have nothing to do with passive ... of course, because they are not SVO / OVS structures, but SVL / LVS structures.
This was to show to Valisj, using a very simple and uncontroversial example, that when you change the order of the words of a sentence something in the meaning also can change ( ''THE dog is in the garden'' vs. ''in the garden there is A dog'').
But otherwise I am very proud of you: your mention of the thematic role ''PATIENT'' and of the pragmatic role TOPIC is a first step toward the solution...but there is still some work to do...
pietro
włóczykij wrote: He supposed, that this is a filosophical thing - Latvians (and I think all our part of Europe) understand smb's. needs as objective state of the World. And probably was right.
If "The World" is a subject of this sentece all is clear. "Man vajag aitu" is "active" and "ACTIVE".
Non ho capitociuppo2000 wrote:''A lion eating a sheep''
(please, take into consideration the fact that this is not meant to represent a sentence, but a MENTAL IMAGE a CONCEPT!!!)
can be seen from the point of view of ''the lion'', that is from the point of view of the entity that gives start to that particular situation or from the point of view of the ''sheep'' , that is the entity that undergoes that particular situation.
We could name these particular MENTAL points of view: ''active'' and ''passive''.
I would like to stress once again that this two terms (''active'' and ''passive'') represent exclusively two MENTAL, let's say, ''things''.
They are simply two different ways to categorize or segment the reality.
So in the end we could call them: two MENTAL categories, two MENTAL objects...
Now in order to ''translate'' these MENTAL categories/objects into sentences, language has developed what is known as Linguistic Voice: ACTIVE and PASSIVE.
So ''passive'' is a MENTAL category/object, while PASSIVE is a linguistic, we could say SYNTACTIC, category/object.
And the same is true for ''active'' and ACTIVE.
valisj wrote:Ciuppo2000, tu piesienies pavisam kaut kam citam.
Suns ir dārzā.
Dārzā ir suns.
Abu augstāk minēto teikumu jēga ir tā pati, vienīgi mainās uzsvars uz noteiktu vārdu. Vārdu kārtība nenosaka to, vai teikums ir ciešamajā kārtā.
Pēc definīcijas ciešamā kārta latviešu valodā izsaka darbību, kuras veicējs teikumā nav minēts.
Ciešamo kārtu veido, savienojot palīgdarbības vārdu tikt un ciešamās kārtas divdabi ar galotni -ts.
Teikumā - aitu ēd lauva - netiek lietots palīgdarbības vārds tikt, līdz ar to tas nesaskan ar pieņemto definīciju un tātad nav pasīvs.
Ciuppo2000, pastāsti man ļoti īsi un konkrēti, ko tu saskati šajā teikumā tik pasīvu?
Sol Invictus wrote:Tur nav nekāda pasīva, tā vienkārši ir filozofiska ideja - cilvēks ir salasījies Čomski un atklājis sev tēzi, ka ir universāla domu valoda un tāpēc uzskata, ka tas pats koncepts, kas angliski un itāliski tiek izteikts ar pasīvu, latviski tiek izteikts ar citu vārdu kārtību, ko viņa prātā apstiprina tas, ka nosauktie ainiņas dalībnieki figurē vienādā secībā (tas nekas, ka dažādās valodās tie ir dažādi teikuma locekļi) un, protams, minētie piemēri ar otrādu vārdu kārtību daudzos gadījumos tiktu tulkoti kā pasīvs. Viss būtu skaisti un brīnišķīgi, ja viņš nemēģinātu mūs pierunāt šo hipotēzi uztvert kā absolūtu patiesību un pielietot praksē. Tas, kas viņam nepielec ir, ka ciešamo kārtu lieto gadījumos, kad "cieš" teikuma priekšmets. Tā nelaimīgā avs nav teikuma priekšmets un cieš visos iespējamos vārdu kārtības gadījumos.
Es personīgi domāju, ka šajā teorētiskajā domu valodā nav nekādas vajadzības pēc ciešamās kārtas, jo domās tu tāpat zinātu, ka tā aita cieš un, ja būtu vajadzība runāt tieši par aitu, tu ar to arī sāktu, neatkarīgi no tā kādu grammatisko struktūru vajadzētu lietot.
mak wrote:Non ho capitociuppo2000 wrote:''A lion eating a sheep''
(please, take into consideration the fact that this is not meant to represent a sentence, but a MENTAL IMAGE a CONCEPT!!!)
can be seen from the point of view of ''the lion'', that is from the point of view of the entity that gives start to that particular situation or from the point of view of the ''sheep'' , that is the entity that undergoes that particular situation.
We could name these particular MENTAL points of view: ''active'' and ''passive''.
I would like to stress once again that this two terms (''active'' and ''passive'') represent exclusively two MENTAL, let's say, ''things''.
They are simply two different ways to categorize or segment the reality.
So in the end we could call them: two MENTAL categories, two MENTAL objects...
Now in order to ''translate'' these MENTAL categories/objects into sentences, language has developed what is known as Linguistic Voice: ACTIVE and PASSIVE.
So ''passive'' is a MENTAL category/object, while PASSIVE is a linguistic, we could say SYNTACTIC, category/object.
And the same is true for ''active'' and ACTIVE.
Can you please define PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Because I don't understand the difference.
P.S. Come si pronuncia "ciuppo"?
ciuppo2000 wrote:The passive SVO-sentence ''the house is being built by workmen'' should be expected to be rendered by the passive SVO construction: '' *Māja tiek celta darbineku / darbinieku celta''. However, formally passive sentences with an explicitly expressed agent are extremely rare in Latvian and should be avoided.
Both functions that are central for passive (agent demotion / deletion and topicalisation of the object) can also be expressed in active sentences.
Sol Invictus wrote:ciuppo2000 wrote:The passive SVO-sentence ''the house is being built by workmen'' should be expected to be rendered by the passive SVO construction: '' *Māja tiek celta darbineku / darbinieku celta''. However, formally passive sentences with an explicitly expressed agent are extremely rare in Latvian and should be avoided.
Verb goes last and it is neither rare or should be avoided and darbinieki so is not the correct word to useBoth functions that are central for passive (agent demotion / deletion and topicalisation of the object) can also be expressed in active sentences.
Well, duh, but that doesn't make the result a passive.
Return to “Latvian (Latviešu valoda)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests