zompist bboard

Recently during a conversation I had about my study and work I wanted to show the difference between different languages in how much information is expressed in a single word, and how much information is required for a sentence. I improvized the phrase "the book he had read" and translated it in a few different languages that I knew (mostly West-European languages and Zulu and Swahili). Since it occasionally comes up Since I occasionally bring up how languages are different I thought it might be a good idea to have a few translations ready of languages that are quite divergent. Can anybody give me translations of this phrase with glosses? For languages that show case assume that the phrase is a subject of an intransitive verb. For language that make a difference between recent past and remote past assume that it is in the remote past. I specifically want to have translations of prenominal relative clauses. I also prefer languages that are 1) not European IE languages, and 2) that are relatively well-known (that whoever I am talking to is aware of the existence of that language).

Thank you!

PS
In Zulu the phrase is:

Incwadi ayeyifundile
i-ncwadi a-a-ye-yi-fund-ile
aug-9Book relnonsbj1-rempst-partsm1-om9-read-perf

I *think* in Swahili the phrase is
kitabu alichokuwa amekisoma
ki-tabu a-li-cho-ku-wa a-me-ki-som-a
nprx7-book sm1-pst-rel7-inf-aux sm1-prf-om7-read-fs

In Dutch the phrase is
het boek dat hij gelezen had
het boek dat hij ge-lez-en had-∅
the.neut book.neut rel.neut 3sg.masc.nom ppp-read-ppp aux.pst-sg

And I think in Afrikaans it is
Die boek wat hy ge-lees het
the book rel 3sg.masc.nom ppp-read aux

The abbriviations:
aug=augment, something all Zulu nouns have except following certain determiners and if they are vocatives or negative polarity items
relnonsbj=relative non-subject subject agreement, the subject agreement used for relative clauses where the head is not the subject
remspt=remote past
partsm= participial subject agreement, agreement that is used amongst others following the remote past a-, that in this case can be regarded as an auxiliary.
om=object agreement
perf=perfect

nprx=noun prefix, that determines the noun class of the noun
sm=subject marker
pst=past
rel= relative marker
inf=infinitive, in this case only present because -wa is monolyllabic
aux= auxiliary
fs=final suffix, in this case the default -a

neut=neuter
masc=masculine
nom=nominative
ppp=passive perfect participle

In the Bantu exampels the numbers refer to the noun classes, in the other example the 3 refers to 3rd person.

Lakota/Dakota:

wówapi waŋ yawá kiŋ
wa-owá=pi=waŋ | yawá=kiŋ
DETR-write=NMLZ=DET | read=DEF

The clause is essentially a sentence ("he read a (specific) book") plus a final nominalizer ("the (one which)").

Literary Welsh:

Y llyfr a ddarllenasai.
y llyfr a dd\darllen-asai
DEF book REL REL\read-PLU.3sg

Modern standard-ish:

Y llyfr yr oedd e wedi ei ddarllen.
y llyfr yr oedd e wedi ei dd\darllen-ø
DEF book SUB be.IND.IMPERF.3sg 3sg.MASC after 3sg.POSS POSS\read-VERBNOUN

French:
Le livre qu'il avait lu
DEF.M.SG book REL.ACC=3SG.M.NOM AUX.PRF*.PAST.3SG read.PART

*Not sure how to gloss a periphrastic perfect – help?

Latin:
Liber quem hic evolverat
book.M.SG.NOM REL.M.SG.ACC this.M.SG.NOM read-PAST.PRF-3SG

[evolvere means "unfurl" or "unroll" and is given as a specific translation of "read" for a book in my dictionary. legere is I think the ordinary translation of "read" or "recite" although it has other meanings too – it's the verb that evolved into lire in French. If you use legerat instead of evolverat it means that the person read it aloud.]

dodgy out-of-practice German:
Das Buch, das er gelesen hatte
DEF.N.SG.NOM book, REL.N.SG 3SG.M.NOM PART-read-PART AUX.PRF*.PAST.3SG

Gloss of the English for comparison:
The book he had read
DEF book 3SG.NOM AUX.PRF*.PAST read.PART

finlay wrote:
Latin:
Liber quem hic evolverat
book.M.SG.NOM REL.M.SG.ACC this.M.SG.NOM read-PAST.PRF-3SG

You can leave out hic, can't you? I am looking for the most natural example, not all the information needs to be there (in fact, one of the things that I want to show is how some information is obligatory in some languages and are usually left out in other languages (for example the sex of the reader is obligatory indicated in the English, Dutch, Afrikaans and French examples (he, hij, hy and il), but not in Zulu, Swahili, and if I understand it correctly Lakota, and in some languages the plusquamperfect is obligatory in those circumstances, whereas in other languages they use a simple past))

Lakota doesn't have gender or tense (or cases).

Astraios wrote:Lakota/Dakota:

wówapi waŋ yawá kiŋ
wa-owá=pi=waŋ | yawá=kiŋ
DETR-write=NMLZ=DET | read=DEF

The clause is essentially a sentence ("he read a (specific) book") plus a final nominalizer ("the (one which)").

Why not interpret it as "he who had read a book" (eg with the subject rather than object as the focus)?

merijn wrote:

finlay wrote:
Latin:
Liber quem hic evolverat
book.M.SG.NOM REL.M.SG.ACC this.M.SG.NOM read-PAST.PRF-3SG

You can leave out hic, can't you?

Maybe. I'll defer to someone else on that one, to be honest, but I left it in because it felt too ambiguous without it. Generally, though, yes, verbs don't need an explicit subject in Latin.

Here's an attempt at Japanese, but my grammar isn't great here so someone else can come along and correct it:
読んだ本
yonda hon
yom-ta hon
read-PFV book

Basically, the verb is used attributively, which means it comes before the head noun, and the subject is not obligatory. 'read' is in the perfective or past form (i'm not really sure which it is); I'm not sure if Japanese has an anterior past.

Vietnamese:
Quyển sách mà nó đã đọc.
CLF.book book REL 3S PST read

đã, the past marker, can usually be left out because tense is clear from context, but I put it in anyway for clarity.

Mandarin
他讀過的書
tā dúguò de shū
3s.M read-already GEN book

過 indicates that the action has already been performed.
他讀過 'He already read' is treated as a modifier for the noun 書 'book', so the genitive 的 is used.

merijn wrote:And I think in Afrikaans it is
Die boek wat hy ge-lees het
the book rel 3sg.masc.nom ppp-read aux

I wish I had my Afrikaans notebook with me! I'm trying to remember the difference between wat, watter, and dat.

I do think you are right though. I don't think watter is correct here. That means the question word which, if I'm not mistaken...and dat is that in the "I know that..." or "I hope that..." sense, not relative clauses.

Everyone else did the languages that I know, so I fail. I'll provide the simplified characters for Chinese though:

他读过的书
ta1 du2guo de shu1

finlay wrote: Here's an attempt at Japanese, but my grammar isn't great here so someone else can come along and correct it:
読んだ本
yonda hon
yom-ta hon
read-PFV book

Basically, the verb is used attributively, which means it comes before the head noun, and the subject is not obligatory. 'read' is in the perfective or past form (i'm not really sure which it is); I'm not sure if Japanese has an anterior past.

It doesn't, at least not in any way you could naturally incode in a verb like that. However, I think adding もう would give the general impression well enough. Japanese usually grasp the past perfect pretty quickly when it's explained to them, so the concept is probably there even if there isn't a grammatical category for it.

brandrinn wrote:Japanese usually grasp the past perfect pretty quickly when it's explained to them, so the concept is probably there even if there isn't a grammatical category for it.

What about <shimau> "finish, do completely, put away"? Or am I being confused by the Mandarin meaning of one of its kanji <了う>. I hear <shimau> a lot (enough that -te plus it contracts to <chau>) but I don't think it's actually required...

Eddy wrote:Why not interpret it as "he who had read a book" (eg with the subject rather than object as the focus)?

I don't even know how you managed to come up with this question. merijn said "the book he had read", as the subject of an intransitive verb, which means like this: "The book he had read is green." If I interpreted the Lakota as "he who had read the book", it would mean this: "He who had read the book is green," which is not the same thing at all.

First, it should also be pointed out that in English it could also be "the book that he had read".

Spanish/French:

El libro que (ya) había leído
Le livre qu'il avait lu
the book that(he) had (already) read

Boring stuff. In Spanish, ya "already" is often added.

Arabic:
الكتاب الذي كان (قد) قرأه
/al-kitaːbu lːaðiː kaːna (qad) qaraʔa-hu/ (full pronunciation)
/al-kitaːb alːaðiː kaːn (qad) qaraʔ-hu/ (short pronunciation)
the-book.NOM.the that.3SG.M be.perf.3SG.M qad read.PERF.3SG.M[he]-3SG[book]
the-book that.3SG.M be.perf.3SG.M qad read.PERF.3SG.M[he]-3SG[nook]

Presence of an anaphoric pronoun: "the book that he had read it". The verb كان kaana "to be" is used as an auxiliary marking the pluperfect if in the perfect followed by another verb in the perfect. The particle "qad" is often added, like "ya" in Spanish...

Cantonese:
佢讀過本書
kéuih duhkgo bún syū
[kʰɵy˩˧ dʊk̚˨ko˧ buːn˧˥ ɕyː˥]
he read EXP CL book

過 go EXP = experiential: expressing having already done something in the past, as opposed to other perfective and imperfective markers. 本 bún CL = classifier: used in Cantonese as the subordinator for relative clauses. Another option would be to use 嘅 ge instead of 本 bún, where it behaves similarly to Mandarin 的 as a sort of genitive marker working as a subordinator too. 嘅 ge is just more formal than 本 bún.

Astraios wrote:

Eddy wrote:Why not interpret it as "he who had read a book" (eg with the subject rather than object as the focus)?

I don't even know how you managed to come up with this question. merijn said "the book he had read", as the subject of an intransitive verb, which means like this: "The book he had read is green." If I interpreted the Lakota as "he who had read the book", it would mean this: "He who had read the book is green," which is not the same thing at all.

So in other words, "he who read the book" and "the book he read" are both valid interpretations of that phrase-- grammatically speaking? I mean, let's just say there were a man who read a book, and he was in fact green... then you'd use the same sentence?

merijn wrote:And I think in Afrikaans it is
Die boek wat hy ge-lees het

That's good but one orthographical problem. You don't need to hyphenate between the past passive participle and "lees" because "lees" isn't a loanword.

Die boek wat hy gelees het.

Yeah I know, but it was to show where one morpheme ended and the other started.

Xephyr wrote:

Astraios wrote:

Eddy wrote:Why not interpret it as "he who had read a book" (eg with the subject rather than object as the focus)?

I don't even know how you managed to come up with this question. merijn said "the book he had read", as the subject of an intransitive verb, which means like this: "The book he had read is green." If I interpreted the Lakota as "he who had read the book", it would mean this: "He who had read the book is green," which is not the same thing at all.

So in other words, "he who read the book" and "the book he read" are both valid interpretations of that phrase-- grammatically speaking? I mean, let's just say there were a man who read a book, and he was in fact green... then you'd use the same sentence?

No.

This is the difference:

Wówapi waŋ [yawá kiŋ] tȟó.
book=a | [read=the] | green
A book [the one he read] is green.

[Wówapi kiŋ yawá kiŋ] tȟó.
[book=the | read=the] | green.
(He) [the one who read the book] is green.

You can't have it as *Wówapi kiŋ [yawá kiŋ] tȟó. *(He) [the one who read] the book is green, because it doesn't make sense, because the definiteness of the head noun is marked by the subordinating conjunction, which is (the second) kiŋ here, or čha if the head noun is indefinite: Wówapi waŋ [yawá čha] tȟó. One of the books he read is green., and not by the determiner which immediately follows the head noun, which always has to be indefinite, whether the head noun is definite or what.

You could use it as he who read a book, I suppose (but never "he who read the book"):

Wówapi waŋ [yawá kiŋ] tȟó.
The book [he read] is green.

[Wówapi waŋ yawá kiŋ] tȟó.
He [who read a book] is green.

…but in practice you'd almost never get that, because the second one would want to be:

Wičháša waŋ [wówapi waŋ yawá kiŋ] tȟó.
man=a | [book=a | read=the] | green
The man [who read a book] is green.

or something like that, with a more obvious thing saying it's the man and not the book who's green.

merijn wrote:Yeah I know, but it was to show where one morpheme ended and the other started.

Fair enough but I'm sure people would've realised what ge- means seeing as a lot of people on the board understand some Germanic language.

Bob Johnson wrote:

brandrinn wrote:Japanese usually grasp the past perfect pretty quickly when it's explained to them, so the concept is probably there even if there isn't a grammatical category for it.

What about <shimau> "finish, do completely, put away"? Or am I being confused by the Mandarin meaning of one of its kanji <了う>. I hear <shimau> a lot (enough that -te plus it contracts to <chau>) but I don't think it's actually required...

I was talking about actual tenses. If you're going to resort to paraphrasis, then yes, you can do pretty much anything. The original question was whether or not past simple, present perfect, and past perfect could be distinguished in grammatical endings like た.

brandrinn wrote:

Bob Johnson wrote:

brandrinn wrote:Japanese usually grasp the past perfect pretty quickly when it's explained to them, so the concept is probably there even if there isn't a grammatical category for it.

What about <shimau> "finish, do completely, put away"? Or am I being confused by the Mandarin meaning of one of its kanji <了う>. I hear <shimau> a lot (enough that -te plus it contracts to <chau>) but I don't think it's actually required...

I was talking about actual tenses. If you're going to resort to paraphrasis, then yes, you can do pretty much anything. The original question was whether or not past simple, present perfect, and past perfect could be distinguished in grammatical endings like た.

Do I need to explain to you what you said?

Standard Swedish:

Boken, [som] han [hade] läst.
book-DEF [that] he [had] read-SUPINE

Same structure for all of Northern Germanic.

Boka, som han hadde lest.
Bogen, der han havde læst.
Bókin, sem hann hafði lesið.
Bókin, sum hann hevði lisið.

Standard Korean (South)

그가 읽은 책
ku-ka ilk-un chayk
(keu-ga ilg-eun chaek)
3.SG.M-NOM read-PERF.ADJ book

그가 읽었던 책
ku-ka ilg-ess-ten chayk
(keu-ga ilg-eod-deon chaek)
3.SG.M-NOM read-PERF-REFL.ADJ book

Korean works pretty much the same as Japanese.
-던 adds reflective meaning, makes it feel like it happened long ago.

Or,

読み終えた本
Yomioeta hon
Yom-i-oe-ta hon
read-INF-finish-PAST book
The book (he) finished reading

Compare with :

読んでいた本
Yonde ita hon
yom-te i-ta hon
read-GERUND be-PAST book
The book (he) was reading