Arabarra knows the language better than I do, but he doesn't come here as often.
crush wrote:1. "Alemaniarrek, Francoren eskakizunari jarraituz, [...] eraso zuten Gernika"
Where did that 'z' come from in 'jarraituz'?
2. "Munduarentzat, erasoaldi hau askatasunaren aurkako diktaduren garaipena zen."
I think i can kinda see why you have -ko at the end of aurka here, but it's still not that clear to me. Sorta like "What kind of victory was it? It was an against-freedom victory." I feel like i don't have a good grasp on when/how to use the -ko suffix. Also, is "diktaduren" plural? Would the singular form be "diktaduraren"?
3. "Picasso Parisen errefuxiaturik zegoen."
What is the -rik for? I've seen it before in things like "nekaturik", but i'm not so sure what it's for.
4. "Picassoren koadro hau, bere ezagunetarikoa"
"ezagunetarikoa" I get that it means "one of his more well-known", but there's no way i would've ever pieced that together without Assimil telling me. ezagun + en + etan + rik + ko + a. I also don't get why you need the -ko at the end, and does the -etan completely swallow up the -en? How can you tell "one of his better known" and "one of his known" apart?
5. "Ez zuen nahi izan bere koadroa Espainian erakutsia izaterik."
I have no idea why we have the -ia in erakutsia. I saw them use "maitia" before, and didn't understand it there either. Is it just a passive participle? I also don't understand why izate is in partitive. They told us you can often use verbal nouns in place of verbs, but without any sort of explanation, just that "you'll get used to it"...
There's lots more questions i have about the last two lessons, but that should be enough to get me started for now... I've been having lots of fun studying Basque, but these last two lessons have really given me a bit of a headache. I think it's time to start from the base (again).
"Ez zuen nahi izan bere koadroa Espainian erakutsia izaterik."
Maite maite maitia
Zu zara nerea
Zu zara berria
Zu zara negarra
Zu zara irria
crush wrote:Thanks for the detailed explanations, i'm going to read through them a couple more times just to make sure i've got everything down.
In Assimil we've never covered the nominalized "-tea/-tzea" forms. Is it somewhat similar to "que + subjunctive" in Spanish/French? "No quería que ... fuera expuesto"/"Il ne voulait pas que ... soit exposé"?
And what exactly does izan ask for? What form is erakutsia? I thought it was related to "maitia"
Used with izan ‘to be’ as a copula, a perfect participle clause functions as a predicate relating
the subject noun phrase to a state of affairs resulting from the action denoted by the
participle.
EDIT: I felt really good about today's lesson, a lot of questions i asked yesterday appeared again today and i understood things much better. I still don't quite get the nominalization, there was one sentence that i can't quite figure out:
"Baina duela zenbait urtetatik hona, bada leku denetan ulergarri izatea eta komunikatzea posible egiten duen hizkuntza estandarra: euskara batua."
The next is the nominalizations. As its name suggests, is it just a way to treat the phrase as a noun? ie you wouldn't say "Euskaraz komunikatu oso zaila da" but rather "Euskaraz komunikatzea [...]"?
"There is an in all places makes-possible being understood and communicating standard language."
There's a standard language that makes it possible to be understood and to communicate in all places.
I think it's starting to sink in or at least make some sort of sense...
crush wrote:Thanks again! In simpler sentences i think i'm starting to get a good idea of how it's used, the same with the -z ending with verbs.
And the Spanish/French example is equivalent to "I want X to Y", where X isn't the subject of want.
To say "I want to go", you'd say:
"Ni joaten nahi dut."
...but to say "I want you to go", would it be:
"Zu joatea nahi dut." ...?
"(Ni) joan nahi dut."
"Ez zuen nahi izan bere koadroa Espainian erakutsia izaterik."
Asko ikusia naiz, geroztik, nire bizitza luzean.
I have seen a lot, since then, in my long life.
arabarra wrote:Let me add my two cents:"(Ni) joan nahi dut."
Don't forget the ergative: NiK joan nahi dut.
I am ashamed of myself. I was thinking in English and not Basque while writing that and other posts, so I just saw "joan" and assumed the subject should be absolutive.
"I know Oteiza's work."Oteizaren lana ezaguna dut.
crush wrote:It also doesn't help that i wrote it incorrectly to begin with Thanks for the help, the -a ending still isn't quite clear, but i've got a better grasp on nominalization than i did before.
crush wrote:I've got another question:"I know Oteiza's work."Oteizaren lana ezaguna dut.
Why don't they use "ezagutzen"?
An interesting feature of Basque conversational style is the occurrence of transitive clauses
with *edun as a copula expressing predication. Instead of the regular theme + predicate
structure with the intransitive copula izan, we find a transitive structure ergative +
theme + predicate requiring a transitive copula: *edun.
In this way, the language makes available an additional argument, to be interpreted as
connected in some way with the predication: a connection sometimes factual, sometimes
purely emotional.
Transitive predication structures as studied in the previous section [read above quote] also occur with participial
clauses used as predicates, indicating a state resulting from the action of the verb underlying
the participle. The theme of the predication, the only overt absolutive in the sentence,
must be coreferential to the understood subject of an intransitive or medio-passive participle
and with the understood object of a transitive one.
a perfect participle clause functions as a predicate relating
the subject noun phrase to a state of affairs resulting from the action denoted by the
participle.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests