Questions about Welsh

[Jonlang]

Just a quick one:

Seeing as Welsh has no indefinite article how does one emphasise a sentence such as the following:

"Do you see the problem?"
"I see a problem."

With the emphasis on the indefinite article, which Welsh cannot not do, but must be able to do something similar.

[Pole, the]

What does the indefinite article mean here?

[Vijay]

Well, in this example, when person A says "do you see the problem?" and person B says "I see a problem," B is saying that there is some problem that they see, but that may or may not be the problem A is referring to.

[Pole, the]

Wouldn't “I see some problem” work then?

[Vijay]

Yeah, I think it would (with emphasis on "some"), but I don't think it's what we'd say most often in that context.

[Jonlang]

I'm pretty sure Do you see the problem would be something like Dych chi'n gweld y broblem? and I see a problem would be Dw i'n weld problem but there's so way of emphasising it like you can in English as far as I can see...

I don't know if problem or trafferth is the right word to use. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two words.

[Vijay]

FWIW I can't think of a language other than English off the top of my head where it is possible to just emphasize the indefinite article like that (with the same effect as in English at least). For instance, in Malayalam, I'd rephrase it as something like "I see some sort of a problem; what problem do you see?"

[Yng]

Probably something like gweld problem dw i, ond tydw i'm yn gweld y broblem.

This is not nice though.

[linguoboy]

I'm pretty sure Do you see the problem would be something like Dych chi'n gweld y broblem? and I see a problem would be Dw i'n gweld problem but there's so way of emphasising it like you can in English as far as I can see...

Remember: Verb-nouns don't mutate after the particle yn, only predicate nouns and adjectives do.

I don't know if problem or trafferth is the right word to use. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two words.

Trafferth I think of as meaning more like "trouble" or "difficulty". Schoolchildren, for instance, mynd i drafferth when they do something wrong.

[TCCollins]

How about "Dw i'n gallu gweld problem" (I CAN see a problem)?

[Jonlang]

I'm pretty sure Do you see the problem would be something like Dych chi'n gweld y broblem? and I see a problem would be Dw i'n gweld problem but there's so way of emphasising it like you can in English as far as I can see...

Remember: Verb-nouns don't mutate after the particle yn, only predicate nouns and adjectives do.

Hahaha, thanks but I'm sure that was my Mac "correcting" gweld to weld (as it just did when I typed it here!) But I really should be more careful when typing in Welsh.

I don't know if problem or trafferth is the right word to use. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two words.

Trafferth I think of as meaning more like "trouble" or "difficulty". Schoolchildren, for instance, mynd i drafferth when they do something wrong.

Ah okay, thanks.

EDIT Going back to my question - would Dw i'n gweld un problem work? Seeing as in the English sentence we are singling out a meaning "one" it seems. So wouldn't using (and emphasising) un achieve the same thing?

[Yng]

why does nobody pay attention to my posts in this thread

I mean come on I am actually a Welsh

that would sound weird, like saying 'I see one problem but not the problem'.

tbh dw i'n gweld problem ond dim y broblem is fine.

[TCCollins]

why does nobody pay attention to my posts in this thread

I mean come on I am actually a Welsh

a welsh what though? but ditto any how, like, what would we know?

[Jonlang]

that would sound weird, like saying 'I see one problem but not the problem'.

But that is what is being said. I didn't include it in the original question but the conversation:

A: "Do you see the problem?"
B: "I see a problem."

The emphasised a was meant to sarcastically mean that Person A was actually a problem, but (obviously) not the problem Person A was referring to.

[Yng]

There is a difference between 'I see a problem' and 'I see one problem', though.

[Jonlang]

There is a difference between 'I see a problem' and 'I see one problem', though.

Is there? They both mean you see a problem and that there could be an unspecified amount of problems. And I'm sure there are languages whose indefinite article was derived from their number "one".

[Yng]

The fact that you can even make the statement 'is derived from the numeral one' suggests that there is in fact a difference between the numeral one and an indefinite article, surely?

[linguoboy]

There is a difference between 'I see a problem' and 'I see one problem', though.

Is there? They both mean you see a problem and that there could be an unspecified amount of problems.

I disagree. "I see one problem" with contrastive emphasis strongly suggests to me that the speaker sees one and only one problem. Whereas "I see a problem" implies the existence of other problems the speaker may or may not see.

And I'm sure there are languages whose indefinite article was derived from their number "one".

Such as the one you're speaking?

The line of reasoning you're engaging in now has a name. It's called the etymological fallacy.

[Jonlang]

There is a difference between 'I see a problem' and 'I see one problem', though.

Is there? They both mean you see a problem and that there could be an unspecified amount of problems.

I disagree. "I see one problem" with contrastive emphasis strongly suggests to me that the speaker sees one and only one problem. Whereas "I see a problem" implies the existence of other problems the speaker may or may not see.

Yeah okay, I see that.

Someone elsewhere offered up this explanation:

Dafydd: Dych chi’n gweld y broblem?
Betsan: Dw i’n gweld problem

Betsan would emphasise the word ‘problem’ instead (literally “I see PROBLEM”)

This apparently would give the sarcastic emphasis that I see a problem gives in English because (as I was forgetting) "indefiniteness should be inferred where lack of all definiteness exists".

[linguoboy]

why does nobody pay attention to my posts in this thread?

Rw i'n gwrando arnat ti o hyd.

[Yng]

dyolf

mate

that's basically the suggestion I gave several posts ago and the suggestion that TCCollins gave (or indeed, with a small variation, the suggestion I gave several posts before that)

Rw i'n gwrando arnat ti o hyd.

diolch init

[Jonlang]

dyolf

mate

that's basically the suggestion I gave several posts ago and the suggestion that TCCollins gave (or indeed, with a small variation, the suggestion I gave several posts before that)

Yes, it is, my apologies. I finally got my head around it when I was reminded that the indefiniteness should be assumed from the lack of any definiteness and that the emphasis should be on problem (apparently). But I truly do apologise, sometimes it takes me a while of going through something before it clicks.

So apologies to Yng and TCCollins.

-------------------------------------------------------

Just looking through King's grammar.... He translates the phrase "Aled lost £2" as Collodd Aled ddwy bunt, which I get, simple Lost Aled two pounds. The other is Naeth Aled golli dwy bunt, which stumps me. Naeth doesn't seem to be in my dictionary and, resorting to Google Translate, can only find a translation of "stolen from". If that translation is right then I don't get how "stolen from" and "lost" can be used together to mean "Aled lost £2".

[linguoboy]

Just looking through King's grammar.... He translates the phrase "Aled lost £2" as Collodd Aled ddwy bunt, which I get, simple Lost Aled two pounds. The other is Naeth Aled golli dwy bunt, which stumps me. Naeth doesn't seem to be in my dictionary and, resorting to Google Translate, can only find a translation of "stolen from". If that translation is right then I don't get how "stolen from" and "lost" can be used together to mean "Aled lost £2".

Naeth = gwnaeth (i.e. 3S preterite of gwneud).

If you search "naeth" in Wiktionary, it will actually take you to the page for gwneud.

[Yng]

Yeah, this is a less synthetic version of the preterite construction. collodd X Y = na(e)th X golli Y. It literally means 'Aled did lose two pounds' but it doesn't have any different force from collodd (unlike 'Aled did lose two pounds' which is used differently to 'Aled lost two pounds').

[Jonlang]

So (gw)naeth is just an aux verb like mae? But where mae says something is happening, (gw)naeth is something that has happened?