kevin wrote:You're right about the Irish, it is really "in" as used for location. Even though I don't really know anyhting about Finnish or Estonian, my first thought was that the literal translation of the Irish phrasing should be inessive rather than essive. Thanks for confirming that.
linguoboy wrote:Y'all are killing me with your nitpicking literal-mindedness.
(1) I didn't say it was an exact parallel. Hence the tilde (~), used here with meaning "approximately" borrowed from mathematical notation.
(2) In Finnish, the contemporary essive has several usages which cannot be translated with English "as", such as its temporal usage, e.g. sain kirjeen viime maanantaina. (The speaker was not employed as a Monday when receiving the package.) More to the point, there are also fixed locative uses, e.g. luen lehtiä kotona. (The speaker is not reading the newspaper as a house.) The existence of a distinct inessive case is interesting, but it doesn't invalid these parallels.
I think what distinguishes the Irish construction from the ordinary usage of i is the presence of the possessive. Táim in aistritheoir would have a completely different meaning. Bhínn breoite go minic mar pháiste reeks of Béarlachas to me. A more natural translation of olin lapsena tihti haige would incorporate im' pháiste.
Linguaphile wrote:You're right that essive is used in certain temporal expression in Finnish, like your maanantaina example, but those are still related to a temporary state.
linguoboy wrote:Táim i m'aistritheoir contrasts with less marked copular expressions like aistritheoir is ea mé[*], which simply express identification. In contrast to those, it emphasises the temporal nature of the identification.
dEhiN wrote:Would this be equivalent in usage to estar and ser in Spanish/Portuguese? So bí i + POSS is used to for temporary states, while the copula is for permanent states? If so, then why isn't the copula used for profession? Isn't that generally a more permanent state?
linguoboy wrote:Linguaphile wrote:You're right that essive is used in certain temporal expression in Finnish, like your maanantaina example, but those are still related to a temporary state.
Which is exactly what the Irish construction expresses! Táim i m'aistritheoir contrasts with less marked copular expressions like aistritheoir is ea mé[*], which simply express identification. In contrast to those, it emphasises the temporal nature of the identification. That's why I see a parallel here: In both cases, you have an originally locative expression modified or extended to express a current state. No, the details aren't the same, but try to make out the wolf among the weeds.
[*] All examples Munster. Particularly in Ulster dialects, use of the bí i + POSS construction has spread at the expense of constructions with the copula and is not perceived as the more marked expression.
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:Would this be equivalent in usage to estar and ser in Spanish/Portuguese? So bí i + POSS is used to for temporary states, while the copula is for permanent states? If so, then why isn't the copula used for profession? Isn't that generally a more permanent state?
It is. I literally just gave you an example of this (aistritheoir is ea mé).
If you want me to give you a fuller account of how this construction works and how it contrasts to the copular expressions, I can. Originally I was speaking to księżycowy, who already has a basic understanding of this area of Irish syntax. My impression was that your studies hadn't advanced to that point yet.
dEhiN wrote:I spent the evening looking up declensions for Albanian vocab. It was a bit frustrating because Wiktionary had the full declension for some nouns, but only the nominative forms for others. I tried looking for an Albanian dictionary that would list the declensions, but I could only find this. Unfortunately, like Wiktionary, that dictionary only lists the declensions for some of the nouns and even then only the nominative forms. I also found this other dictionary, but they don't even list the forms. However, using a mix of the three of them I've been able to determine at least the nominative forms for the nouns that I had added some time ago from the Peace Corps course. I'm still going through what I added, but I'm making headway. I think I'm also starting to understand the adjectival articles in Albanian, and how they're used.
Wiktionary had a page of Albanian declension table templates which I guess people can use for regular nouns? Through that table and from looking up some nouns, I now know that regular feminine nouns ending in -ë are declined (sing.indef./pl.indef./sing.def./pl.def.) as -ë/-a/-a/-at for nominative and -ë/-ën/-a/-at for accusative. As you can see, both nominative and accusative cases use the same definite endings. However, I'm not sure how to tell yet if a feminine noun that ends in -ë is regular or not. (I'm also not sure if there's such a thing as regular noun declension patterns in Albanian. I'm assuming so because Wiktionary has those templates.) I did edit the Wiktionary entry for gocë to include the declension table because from what I could tell, it seemed to follow the same pattern (at least for the nominative). Hopefully I was correct!
dEhiN wrote:1) Does such a thing exist in Arabic, Persian, or Udu?
dEhiN wrote:What, for me, was a fun community where I could relate to others with the same hobbies and interests as me, became a course in navigating human politics.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest