zompist bboard

I am interested how do languages, preferably non-IE ones, deal with distinctions like watch/see and hear/listen.
Do they use separate words, an affix or an auxiliary verb or simply have no distinction?

Japanese doesn't really bother; though you can use adverbs like <jitto miru> "look firmly {at accusative}" if you need to emphasize it, or verb compounds like <miharu> lit. look-stick-to or <mitsumeru> lit. look-fill-up.

German:

sehen/schauen/gucken 'to see, to look'
(jdn./etw.) ansehen/anschauen/angucken 'to look at' (at-see)
(jdm./etw.) zusehen/zuschauen/zugucken 'to watch' (to-see)

hören 'to hear'
(jdn./etw.) anhören 'to hear sb./sth.'; (sich) anhören 'to sound <adj>'
(jdm./etw.) zuhören 'to listen'

Ayeri:

Different cases for the dependent NP are used to express different meanings.

silv-: +PAT see; +DAT watch; +LOC look at
tang-: +PAT hear; +DAT listen

Jipí wrote:German:

sehen/schauen/gucken 'to see, to look'
(jdn./etw.) ansehen/anschauen/angucken 'to look at' (at-see)
(jdm./etw.) zusehen/zuschauen/zugucken 'to watch' (to-see)

hören 'to hear'
(jdn./etw.) anhören 'to hear sb./sth.'; (sich) anhören 'to sound <adj>'
(jdm./etw.) zuhören 'to listen'

Also, a nice quirk with transitive reflexives:

(sich jdn./etw.) ansehen/anschauen/angucken 'to watch sb./sth.'
(sich jdn./etw.) anhören 'to listen to'

A conlang idea this one: I was thinking of making a volitional distinction on verb with a verb for sight, which is then inflected with "watch/look" being volitional and "see" not. I suppose there must be a natlang precedent for this, though I'm not sure.

Though English has three words: see, watch and look. Couldn't that be another distinction? (edit: looking at the German example I see there is).

They don't seem to be distinguished at all in Vietnamese, at least not in a necessary way. There's many compound verbs that change the meaning slightly which would probably have an effect similar to this difference in English, but don't hold me to anything about it because I'm not very well-versed in that part of the language.

Russian does it with aspect.
For instance:
watch = смотреть (imperfectve)
see = посмотреть (perfective)

Most Russian verbs come in pairs with a perfective and imperfectve form. Often, the simpler form is the imperfectve, and a prefix is added (most commonly по-) to form the perfective. However, there are all sorts of prefixes that can be used to create subtle distinctions, in a similar vein to the way that English uses phrasal verbs (such as: write up, write down, write out, etc.). Russian also appends suffixes to the derived perfective forms to render them imperfective again.

Some of the various prefixes used create further aspectual distinctions, to indicate repetition, or long duration, or momentary resolution, or a frustrated or ineffectual attempt, and so on. A lot of these prefixes are derived from prepositions.

Hebrew either uses different roots, or it just makes the distinction differently than English does.

ראה, raʔa, see < ר-א-י, r-ʔ-y, seeing
הסתכל, histakel, look at < ס-כ-ל, s-k-l, hindering (i.e. 'prevent your eyes from moving away from smth'))
התבונן, hitbonen, look at < ב-י-ן, b-y-n, understanding (i.e. 'look at with understanding, observe'))
צפה, tsafa, watch < צ-פ-י, ts-p-y, expecting (i.e. 'look out, look forward') (Incidentally, I study at Har Ha-tsofim, "Look-out Hill".)
הביט, hebit, look at < נ-ב-ט, n-b-ṭ, sprouting (i.e. 'see smth as tiny as seedlings, look at in detail')
בחן, baħan, look at < ב-ח-ן, b-ħ-n, testing (i.e. 'examine')

שמע, šamaʕ, hear, listen < ש-מ-ע, š-m-ʕ, hearing
הקשיב, hiqšiv, listen < ק-ש-ב, q-š-b, attentive (i.e. 'pay attention')
האזין, heʔezin, listen < א-ז-ן, ʔ-z-n, ear (i.e. 'use your ears')

Finnish
watch - katsella
see - nähdä
These two simply use different roots.

hear - kuulla
listen - kuunnella
Listen seems to be derived from hear, but I'm not sure what is going on. I think it's a frequentative.

Arabic can use سَمَع samaʿa for both 'listen' and 'hear' and the same may apply to other form I verbs of sense, but a derived form with -t- (استمع istamaʿa) only has a volitive meaning. Often the prefix ista- can give a volitive sense, too - استنظر istanẓara means 'look out for, look forward to, watch for'.

French
See = "Voir"
Look at/Watch = "Regarder"

(Somes uses of Watch are covered by "Garder", but only when a "guardian" meaning is implied.)

Hear = "Entendre"
Listen = "Écouter"

This last one leads to a common frenchism for ESL Quebeckers. Because we "écoute la télé", we often "listen to tv". And yes, the common expression for watching tv is "écouter (listen) la télé".

Maybe it's just that when people started to watch TV, they thought of it as radio + images... Which makes sense.

Does anybody know of any nice way to explain the difference between "to watch (sth)" and "to look at (sth)"?

Serafín wrote:Maybe it's just that when people started to watch TV, they thought of it as radio + images... Which makes sense.

That is pretty much the theory. Some grammarians would like Quebeckers to use "regarder la télé", but it just doesn't catch.

Does anybody know of any nice way to explain the difference between "to watch (sth)" and "to look at (sth)"?

We watch events while we look at objects?

Consider :
I am watching you. (And you're probably doing something or intent on doing something)
I am looking at you. (And you're just there, though you still might be doing or intent on doing something, it doesn't matter.)

Greek makes no distinction between these two.

βλέπω /'vle.po/ means both "see" and "watch" and
ακούω /a'ku.o/ means both "hear" and "listen".

There's also κοιτά(ζ)ω /ci'ta.(z)o/ that mostly means "look (at)" and παρακολουθώ /pa.ɾa.ko.lu'θo/ that may mean "watch", but it's usually closer to "pay attention to someone/something", either by watching or listening.

Serafín wrote:Does anybody know of any nice way to explain the difference between "to watch (sth)" and "to look at (sth)"?

I'd assume "look" is about halfway between "watch" and "see", but its true meaning is somewhat vague to me so I can't quite put my finger on it.

Serafín wrote:Does anybody know of any nice way to explain the difference between "to watch (sth)" and "to look at (sth)"?

I would say the core distinction is like this:
see indicates that something is within your field of view, regardless of whether it is on purpose or incidental;
look (at) indicates that you have explicitly and purposely put something into your field of view;
watch indicates that you are purposely keeping something in your field of view for a sustained amount of time, typically because there is, or you expect the possibility of there being, some sort of movement or change.

Or how about this?: Look at smth is a momentane verb, while watch is like an ongoing action.

In Georgian, the difference is mainly that watch and listen take indirect objects, while see takes a direct object. Hear takes an experiencer (dative-marked) subject.

ყურება watching, looking at

ლებანი ფრანგულ ფილმს უყურებს
Levan-i prangul-Ø pilm-s u-qur-eb-s
Levan-NOM French-DAT film-DAT 3.IO-watch-THEME-3S.SUB.PRES
'Levan is watching a French film'

ლებანმა ფრანგულ ფილმს უყურებს
Levan-ma pranguli pilm-i u-qur-a
Levan-ERG French-NOM film-NOM 3.IO-watch-3S.SUB.AOR
'Levan watched a French film'

ლებანს ფრანგული ფილმისთვის უყურებს
Levan-s prangul-i pilm-is=tvis u-qur-eb-ia
Levan-DAT french-GEN film-GEN=for 3.IO-watch-THEME-3S.SUB.EVID
'Levan has [apparently] watched a French film'

[In the evidential, subjects are dative and marked as IOs on the verb; DOs are in nominative and marked like subjects; IOs are marked with the postposition 'for' and not unmarked on the verb]

ნახვა / ხედვა seeing
[This verb is a little more complicated. Its root suppletes for aspect, and also the difference between 'see [regularly]' and 'catch sight of' is encoded through a combination of different affixes, changing of conjugation class, and root choice]

ტბაში კუს ვხედავ
ṭba=ši ḳu-s v-xed-av-Ø
lake=in turtle-DAT 1S.SUB-see.IMP-THEME-1/2.SUB.PRES
'I see a turtle in the lake'

ტბაში კუ ვნახე
ṭba=ši ḳu-Ø v-nax-e
lake=in turtle-NOM 1S.SUB-see.PERF-1/2.SUB.AOR
'I saw a turtle in the lake'

ტბაში კუ არ მინახავს
ṭba=ši ḳu-Ø ar m-i-nax-av-s
lake=in turtle-NOM NEG 1S.OBJ-IO-see-THEME-3S.SUB.EVID
'I didn't see a turtle in the lake'

სმენა listening, hearing [The two verbs have the same masdar]

მოსწავლე მასწავლებელს უსმენs
mosc̣avle-Ø masc̣avlebel-s u-smen-s
student-NOM teacher-DAT 3.IO-listen-3S.SUB.PRES
'The student is listening to the teacher'

მოსწავლემ მასწავლებელს მოუსმინა
mosc̣avle-m masc̣avlebel-s mo-u-smin-a
student-ERG teacher-DAT PERF-3.IO-listen-3S.SUB.AOR
'The student listened to the teacher'

გესმივარ?
g-e-sm-i-var
2S.OBJ-IO-hear-THEME-1S.SUB
'Do / can you hear me?'

Qwynegold wrote:Or how about this?: Look at smth is a momentane verb, while watch is like an ongoing action.

Not really. I've had to think about this a lot simply because Japanese ESL learners just do not get it. But you can look at something for a long time, so it can't be that. As clawgrip says, watch implies something that you're going to hold in your sight for a long time which you expect to change in some way. You look at paintings, not watch them, but you can look at a painting for hours. (you could watch paintings if you were, for example, a guard preventing them from being stolen, but that's even a slightly different nuance of "watch", and quite a specific situation)

An error Japanese learners in particular make is when they talk about going to "watch the cherry blossoms" in spring. This could be corrected to 'see' or 'look at', but I think we would be better off changing it to 'view' or 'enjoy'. Even then it still sounds a bit strange, but this is probably just too much introspection.

finlay wrote:

Qwynegold wrote:An error Japanese learners in particular make is when they talk about going to "watch the cherry blossoms" in spring.

You can watch them fall. 'Watch' is for behavior; you watch something expecting some behavior. Looking at someone is not creepy, watching someone might be (except if you're at a cafe).

I think behaviour is too specific, since it would imply you can only watch living things. It is just any sort of movement or change. Of course, when you look at a person, you are pointing your eyes in their direction, either to examine their appearance or to make eye contact, and when you watch a person, it is to examine what kind of movements they do, i.e. examine their behaviour, as you say. However, as finlay said, when you watch a painting, you are not observing its behaviour; you are doing so with the expectation that it may move (i.e. be stolen) or maybe you think the eyes are going to start moving around, watching the room, or some other movement or change.

Well, then we can say the person, animal or thing is the undergoer or experiencer of something's behavior or some phenomena e.g. the truck blows up on Mythbusters.

Yng wrote:Arabic can use سَمَع samaʿa for both 'listen' and 'hear' and the same may apply to other form I verbs of sense, but a derived form with -t- (استمع istamaʿa) only has a volitive meaning. Often the prefix ista- can give a volitive sense, too - استنظر istanẓara means 'look out for, look forward to, watch for'.

Well, yes, but the collapse in distinction between سمع "hear" and استمع إلى is more salient in colloquial dialects than MSA, where the distinction is more strictly mantained. In Egyptian, استمع إلى has a +formal marker. Instead, the distinction is usually communicated by preposition, i.e. باسمع الصوت "I hear the sound," vs. باسمع للمزيكا "I listen to music."
In terms of seeing, Arabic, including dialectal forms, makes distinctions between see vs. watch vs. look, as in English, by seperate verbs, not necessarily derivates of a single root. EX: MSA رأى "see" vs. شاهد "watch" vs. نظر "look." Egyptian شاف "see" vs. اتفرج "watch" vs. باص "look."

Astraios wrote:Hebrew either uses different roots, or it just makes the distinction differently than English does.

ראה, raʔa, see < ר-א-י, r-ʔ-y, seeing
הסתכל, histakel, look at < ס-כ-ל, s-k-l, hindering (i.e. 'prevent your eyes from moving away from smth'))
התבונן, hitbonen, look at < ב-י-ן, b-y-n, understanding (i.e. 'look at with understanding, observe'))
צפה, tsafa, watch < צ-פ-י, ts-p-y, expecting (i.e. 'look out, look forward') (Incidentally, I study at Har Ha-tsofim, "Look-out Hill".)
הביט, hebit, look at < נ-ב-ט, n-b-ṭ, sprouting (i.e. 'see smth as tiny as seedlings, look at in detail')
בחן, baħan, look at < ב-ח-ן, b-ħ-n, testing (i.e. 'examine')

שמע, šamaʕ, hear, listen < ש-מ-ע, š-m-ʕ, hearing
הקשיב, hiqšiv, listen < ק-ש-ב, q-š-b, attentive (i.e. 'pay attention')
האזין, heʔezin, listen < א-ז-ן, ʔ-z-n, ear (i.e. 'use your ears')

Many of these are cognate with similar Arabic verbs:

ראה, raʔa, see = Arabic رأى raʔā "see"
התבונן, hitbonen, look at = بان bāna "be evident, clear," > تبيّن tabayyana "to examine"
הביט, hebit, look at = نبت nabata "sprout (keeping the original sense of the Hebrew root)" (viz. نبتة "plant")/ نبط nabaṭa "gush, spring forth" (many ن-ب initial roots in Arabic appear to have etymologically related meanings of "come forth, rise, gush, sprout, etc.")
בחן, baħan, look at = not a direct cognate, but perhaps بحث baħaṯa "investigate, study" is related.
שמע, šamaʕ, hear, listen = سمع samaʕa"hear" and استمع istamaʕa "listen"
האזין, heʔezin, listen أذن aḏina "listen, hear, permit"

Some of the ones I omitted may be related as well, but the etymology/semantic drift looks too murky for me to bother with at the moment

meltman wrote:Well, then we can say the person, animal or thing is the undergoer or experiencer of something's behavior or some phenomena e.g. the truck blows up on Mythbusters.

That's just a fancy way of saying that it changes or moves.

Btw, are you teaching ESL in Japan?

Thank you for the answers!