Passive in Latvian

[valisj]

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.

[ciuppo2000]

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.

1) Dārzā ir suns
2) Suns ir dārzā

Jānītis and his mom live in a beautiful house with a garden. They have a dog, whose name is Putins...

Mom : Jāniti! Kur ir Putins?
Jānītis : ........................

Which sentence can Jānītis use? (1), (2) or both?

pietro

[włóczykij]

To Ciuppo2000

Ockham's rasor is openning in my pocket

Where is my doubts:
If concept of "mentalese" is powerfull instrument of linguistic analysis it should be used.
But I think it is rather trying to create universal artificial ontology for all people's languages not reconstrucion of the presumed language of human thougths.

Ontology it is not an iintuitive thing. We derive it from our language, which is essentionally ethnic.
And this ontology is difrent in difrent ethnic languages. We can add to it some new features for understanding foreign languages. We can change it, to make it more consistent and rational or even create completely new.(Such process is called the science)
Ontolgy is clear only in artificial languages. In the naturals we should always keep in mind that what is Subject and what is Object it is not obvious, so what is "passive" or "active" too.

In this forum was tread where some english native speaker ask how "vajadzēt" works.
http://www.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=31604
"MAN VAJAG AITU" (pers. pronom.. in dative + vajag + noun in acc.)
He can't understand how such personal thing like somebady's needs Latvians can express by impersonal and "PASSIVE" construction. 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".
But such ontology is very wired for users of the west europen languages.

And in your opinion: How is with "active" and "ACTIVE" in "MAN VAJAG AITU" ?

Latvians speak also "Man ir aita" .....

Something about atmospheric phenomena....

What the RAIN can do ?
The Rain only can be, can be havy or a little and so on....
In polish "Deszcz leje, pada, kropi,.." in lithuanian "Lietus lyja, krapnuoja...." and many others
(I suppouse, situation in latvian is like in polish and lithuanian)

So, what is the subjects of the sentences:

IT RAIN
IL PLEUT
PIOVE

and on the other hand

DESZCZ PADA
LIETUS LYJA

?????

We can say, that all this sentences is "active" and "ACTIVE", but in english, french and (I suppouse ?) in italian the rain is understanded as not a substance but the state of the weather, world or something like this and the subject of "IT RAIN" is this "SOMETHING".

Maybe exist many "mentaleses" with many, very diffrent ontologies ?

It is interesting, if there are any case in the english language, where "passive"<>"PASSIVE" or "active"<>"ACTIVE". I suppouse, the using of the verb "to seem" will be a good canditate.

Any way: "There are things on the haeven and earth wchich are not dreamt in our philosophy"

[włóczykij]

Mom : Jāniti! Kur ir Putins?
Jānītis : Dārzā !

[ciuppo2000]

Mom : Jāniti! Kur ir Putins?
Jānītis : Dārzā !

...you cheated !!!

...try again !!!

pietro

[ciuppo2000]

To Ciuppo2000

Ontology it is not an iintuitive thing. We derive it from our language, which is essentionally ethnic

If I am not wrong when you use the term ''ethnic language'' you probably refer to LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM / RELATIVITY or SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS:

LINGUISTIC RELATIVSM / RELATIVITY: ''The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined as having two versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior''. (from WIKIPEDIA).

As far as I can understand you are a supporter of the ''strong version'' of the theory.

But nowadays the ''strong version'' of this theory has been fully rejected:

''From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts. Some effects of linguistic relativity have been shown in several semantic domains, although they are generally weak. Currently, a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways, but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors''. (from WIKIPEDIA)

The ''Language of Thought'' and the Chomskian Universal Grammar theories, postulating an interaction between the general cognitive component (Thought) and the linguistic component (Language) of the mind, allows also for a weak form of Relativism, but, unfortunately, the weak version is too ''weak'' to support the hypothesis that ''ontology comes from language'' and the claim of the existence of ''ethnic languages''.

One classic example of Relativism was the claim that Hopi (an american indian people) had no concept of time, for they had no category TIME in their grammar. The linguists and anthropologists, which put forward this idea, probably didn't know that the concept of time can be expressed linguistically also with other means (other grammatical categories like ASPECT or lexically)...

Your post is very interesting and I am glad that this forum is getting more and more enjoyable, but before to go on confuting your claims (there is so much to confute ) I would like to ask you to tell me where you have read the term ''ethnic language''...

pietro

[Sol Invictus]

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]

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?).

''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

[Sol Invictus]

''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

I don't see were you take your pride from given that I only repeated what I've been saying since the begining of the discussion. You on the other hand just made a new rule that your theory is only valid in certain cases

And though you are right that in the given case there is a slight difference in meaning, if you'd read my rant on topic fronting, you'd see that your answer could be:
Māte:Kur suns?
Dēls:Suns ir dārzā
Māte:Kur?
Dēls:Dārzā ir suns

EDIT:
Since you brought up the issue of one of the components missing, I'll try to have another go, since we can now actually describe same situation in both passive and active, if the agent is missing:
Jānis tika nokosts dārzā vs Jāni nokoda dārzā

First sentence is a passive, the second active, the wording is SV in first case and OV in the second case (plus the locative at the end). Now this just tells us what happened. We could however go:

Dārzā tika nokosts Jānis or Dārzā nokoda Jāni
Tika nokosts Jānis dārzā or Nokoda Jāni dārzā
Tika nokosts dārzā Jānis or Nokoda dārzā Jāni

which would add some slight changes in the meaning, but the word order doesn't change the fact that Jānis still is the patient in every case, the passive sentences are still passive and active sentences are still active.

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".

Do you really think there is difference in the idea, if you say "I need sheep" or "Me needs sheep"? I would argue that people think in nonverbal concepts (and therefore all this universal language discussion... meh... certainly such "language" would be so simple that there would be no need for passive in it), language is merely a way to communicate one's thoughts to others. In other languages they may say that "It" rains, while we say that "Rain" rains, yet I doubt it would be unclear to native English speaker that rain rains, just as I may at some instances refer to rain as "it" while still retaining the notion that I am speaking about the rain not something else (just checked on unsuspecting relative - they say that "it" is rain, not the weather because weather cannot rain; maybe we should ask a native English speaker the same?), thus we have the same perception of the world even though we use different expressions for the same thing

[mak]

''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.

Non ho capito

Can you please define PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Because I don't understand the difference.

P.S. Come si pronuncia "ciuppo"?

[valisj]

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]

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?

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.

[valisj]

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.

Gluži manas domas.

[ciuppo2000]

''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.

Non ho capito

Can you please define PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Because I don't understand the difference.

P.S. Come si pronuncia "ciuppo"?

Mak!

You can find in Wikipedia a good definition of Active and Passive voice.

I would also suggest to you and to all who love language and languages to read two books that are still considered two linguistic ''bibles'':

B. Comrie ''Tense'', Cambridge University Press, 1985

B. Comrie ''Aspect'', Cambridge University Press, 1976.

This two little books, which can be found in internet at very low prices, are very interesting not only because they help to understand what a linguistic category is both from a grammatical and a conceptual point of view, but also because they are of great help in shaping a real linguistic ''way of thinking''.

pietro

PS: ciuppo = [čupo]

[ciuppo2000]

''THE EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH PASSIVE IN LATVIAN
Construction with an Agent.
The previously mentioned active sentence ''The workmen are building a house'' (with the word order subject-verb-object, or SVO) could be translated into Latvian by an equally SVO construction: ''Darbnieki ceļ māju''.
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.
A formally active sentence with the word order object-verb-subject (OVS) is used instead: ''Māju ceļ darbinieki'' [...].
The sentence ''Māju ceļ darbinieki'' has the same theme-rheme structure as the english passive sentence ''The house is being built by workmen'' . The same holds true for ''Pavilu sita Pēteris'' in relation to ''Paul was beaten by Peter''.
OVS structures are far more common in case languages than in caseless ones, since in the former sentence members in initial position are identified as either object or subject by virtue of their grammatical form, while in the latter where the initial position is earmarked for the function of the subject, both in active and passive sentences.''

(From ''A Short Grammar of Latvian'', Terje MATHIASSEN, Slavica Publisher, Inc., 1997)

''...Passive constructions are not frequent in the spoken language and are especially rare with first and second person subjects. Both functions that are central for passive (agent demotion / deletion and topicalisation of the object) can also be expressed in active sentences.

(From ''Latvian'', Nicole NAU, Lincom Europa, 1998)

pietro

[Sol Invictus]

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 use

Both 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.

[ciuppo2000]

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 use

Both 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.

ciuppo2000