Print

Print


Or the example of Japanese.

Kare ga utau. "He sings"
(Enkai de) kare ga utau koto da. "He is to sing (at the party)"

2012/1/24 Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

> On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 24 January 2012 07:11, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:57 +0100, Nikolay Ivankov <
> [log in to unmask]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In Russian one should say:
> >>>>
> >>>>Yemu nado pet' = He.DAT nado sing.INF
> >>>>
> >>>>Here "nado" is an adverb used nearly solely for the purpose that
> someone
> >>>>has to do something.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you analyse it as an adverb?  (Adverbs are generally adjuncts;
> does
> >>> this mean that _yemu pet'_ is grammatical, or that N.DAT V.INF is
> >>> grammatical anyways?)
> >>
> >>'Cause it looks like one! "Nado" is unique, I believe, in *only* be
> >>usable in this one particular construction, but it's exchangeable with
> >>"nuzhno" which is transparently a predicate adverb zero-derived from a
> >>predicate adjective meaning "needed"; the same sort of construction is
> >>used in several other situations where English would make use of
> >>auxilliaries.
> >
> > Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate.  For one, _nuzhno_
> doesn't
> > necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't
> have to
> > be of the same syntax.
>
> Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
> only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
> similar.
>
> > But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why
> not
> > call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
>
> Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
> for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
> It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
> and not nouns. E.g., one can say
>
> "Yemu nuzhno moloko." -> "He needs milk." / "Milk is necessary for him."
> where _nuzhno_ is clearly a predicate adjective modifying "milk"; and
> one can say
> "Yemu nuzhno pet'." where _nuzhno_ is modifying "to sing", or
> "Yemu nado pet'." which are as close to perfectly synonymous as two
> different statements in the same language ever get.
> But one cannot say
> *"Yemu nado moloko." because _nado_ cannot be an adjective, only an adverb.
>
> > Russian is
> > zero-copula in the present, isn't it, so _nuzhno pet'_ I would want to
> think
> > of as
> >  0  nuzhno    pet'
> >  is necessary sing.INF
>
> And that is in fact a perfectly grammatical sentence all by itself-
> "Singing is needed."
>
> > Perhaps it's germane what happens to these constructions if you change
> the
> > tense.  What's "he had to sing"?
>
> Then they use _byt'_ as an auxilliary, just like other copular or
> predicate adjective constructions.
>
> "Yemu nado bylo pet'." -> "He needed to sing." / "To sing was needed for
> him."
> "Yemu nado budet pet'." -> "He will need to sing." / "To sing will be
> necessary for him."
>
> > One might object that one would expect _nuzhnoye_ for the adjective
> > ordinarily.  But the yod-less forms of adjectives survive elsewhere too,
> > don't they?
>
> Yes; they're used exclusively as predicates, or, for the neuter form,
> as productive adverb derivations (one *can* use the long-form
> adjectives in predicate positions as well, but never as adverbs). In
> fact, the entire Russian past-tense conjugation system is the result
> of re-interpreting predicate forms of archaic past participles as
> regular verbs.
>
> On 24 January 2012 10:41, Nikolay Ivankov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Silly me, it is a predicative. But well, although it is not too
> > grammatical, "yemu pet'" is aa commonly used reduction.
>
> Oh good, that explains my unsurety quite nicely; I suppose it is the
> sort of thing that one would hear in normal speech, but still be
> uncomfortable about in a formal situation.
>
> -l.
>