|WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics||(Rated C-class)|
Thanks for correcting the Russian words, Wakuran, but in the process you restored the inconsistency (odety doesn't transliterate одеть in any system I know of), and deleted some of the improvements I made. In linguistics articles we usually use scientific transliteration. Transliteration should be offered first, since we are talking about the spoken words regardless of the orthography, and this is primarily a Latin-alphabet encyclopedia (most anglophones can't comprehend Cyrillic letters at all). Cyrillic spelling can optionally be offered as a reference, but is not necessary. You also demoted the reference to Ukrainian—there's no reason for that. The languages and principal should be named first, and then it's okay to show examples in Russian. It does make me wonder if -sja is really a contraction of the non-Ukrainian sebja). Anyone know which other Slavic languages work similarly? —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:42 Z
- Serbo-Croatian reflexive verbs are marked by the clitic se within the clause, which is analyzed syntactically as a distinct word. It certainly does look like a reduced form of the reflexive pronoun sebe. ALTON .ıl 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Spelling in native character set should be default. Transliteration is not exact and makes it difficult to accurately pronounce the words. If you can't read Cyrillic characters, then it probably doesn't matter what the Russian word is to you anyway. --Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Transliteration is used for precisely those readers who don't read the script, of course it's not exact. ALTON .ıl 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Object in genitive
There is a whole subclass of reflexive verbs which can have a direct object in genitive. For instance, compare the Slovenian reflexive "učiti se glasbe" ("to learn music") with non-reflexive "učiti glasbo" ("to teach music"). Some of them can be inherent reflexive verbs (where maybe the original non-reflexive form once existed), but not all of them. Perhaps they should be mentioned as a separate category? Said: 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In Lithuanian language it is possible to form reflexive verb forms with a pronoun (unusual) and with a particle si which comes between the root and the prefix, or after the ending if there is no prefix. But there are exceptions when the particle cannot be used and the reflexive pronoun must be used, e.g. Petras nekenčia savęs, which cannot be said with the particle si (i.e., Petras nesikenčia). But my linguistical knowledge of Lithuanian is very limited.Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Spanish reflexive verb ofenderse is more likely anticausative than autocausative. In Spanish the anticausative reflexive is used interchangeably with the passive voice, so Pedro se ofendió por... means "Pedro was offended by..." A better example would be perderse, to become lost (Pedro se perdió). Would this same analysis be valid for the other languages used in the example? Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that Pedro se ofendió por... is a passive voice. That would be Pedro fue ofendido por.... It's just that you use the same preposition. For example, in Italian you can use Pietro si offese per... (followed by the cause of the offence) but in the passive you use Pietro fu offeso da... (followed by the actor who caused the offence). Balabiot (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to get the experts thinking about the target audience. Wikipedia is not supposed to be at the level of expert language. I'm well educated but come from an era (1970s and 1980s) of education in an English speaking country (Australia) where the actual structure of language was not really taught. When I now turn to Wikipedia to find out definitions for things like reflexive verbs, I find the text almost impenetrable because each sentence is loaded with references to other technical terms that I'm unfamiliar with. I just find that the whole topic of language throughout Wikipedia lacks top level overviews and is far less accessible that topics like history and science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That might be because in English there is no reflexive verb (almost). I'm not a linguist and not even an English native speaker, but my first language has reflexives and I find the article pretty easy to follow. However I agree that more top level overviews would be useful. Balabiot (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Missing group when the agent is also the "receiver" of the action?
I know Italian and Czech, and there is another kind of reflexive verb not included in the page, corresponding to Czech si. For example,
- pronajmout byt => to rent an apartment (to someone), nonreflexive
- pronajmout si byt => to rent an apartment (from someone, literally "to yourself"), reflexive
Another use of si is with many verbs that admit a proper reflexive:
- miju se => I wash myself (Italian mi lavo)
- miju si ruce => I wash my hands (Italian mi lavo le mani)
- The same holds for Croatian, Serbian and Slovene, as far as I can tell dnik ► 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Reflexive for "sink"
I'm not that familiar with other Slavic languages, but I assure you that besides an intransitive tonuti Croatian has potopiti which is transitive, so one can say "brod se potopio".