Language desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 2[edit]

Name of certain Polish/Slavic verbal formations[edit]

Hello. Is there a specific grammatical name for Slavic verbal formations, mostly found in compounds, in the form of (in Polish) "bój" from bić, "byt" from być, "ród" from rodzić (esp. considering the fact that they might not exist independently, as with *pój from pić, *kaz from kazać, *daż from dawać)?

Thanks, 178.42.103.158 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deverbal noun.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, definitely that, but actually - "deverbal noun" is probably what I meant when I said "verbal formation". I was looking for a more specific name, specifically for those three/four-letter, irregularly (?) formed nouns as opposed to nouns that are morphemically participial, or which indicate more narrow grammatical categories (such as agent/patient nouns in your article). If you're Russian, then perhaps you know the Russian term for them? 178.42.103.158 (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your fundamental error is thinking that the noun form is derived from the verb form. That is incorrect. Both are derived from common deep lexical roots, or stems. The process is a lot more regular than it appears. The deception comes from the fact that you are relying on surface roots instead of deep roots. Roots are not words. They are not verbs or nouns or adjectives. They contain lexical information which can be expressed as nouns or verbs. Often, one possibility predominitates in practical use, giving rise to the dilusion that any nouns based on the same root are somehow derived from the verb itself.

The misunderstanding is very widespread, and you will often see it discussed as "nominalization without derivation" (see our article on Nominalization. In Latin, the term would be "deverbativum".

There are noun forms that ARE derived directly from the verb forms, or rather, their surface stems. In Polish, these are called "rzeczowniki odsłowne" or "rzeczowniki odczsownikowe", although that term is usually reserved for gerunds ("czytanie", "Sprzedanie"), so it's a bitch to find information on the phenomenon you describe.

Technically, the forms you mention, though, are not strictly derived from the verbs, as I described above. Practically, though, many grammaticians treat them as if they were, and call them a form of "rzeczownik odsłowny" or "rzeczownik odczsownikowy". As long as you keep in mind what is actually going on, and that you are dealing with deep roots instead of surface roots, you will be able to keep from getting confused. If you think of it as a process of deverbalization, you have to remember that the sequence is verb form > deep stem > noun form. Otherwise, you are going to come to the conclusion, as you already have, that the process is estremely irregular and often downright incomprehensible.

Last of all, you mention *pój from pić, *kaz from kazać, *daż from dawać. You can see these in prefixed forms, like "napój", "rozkaz" and "podaż".

Swan's Polish grammar contains a discussion of deep versus surface roots and the phonetical shenanigans that take place that you will find helpful as a starting point. Remember, words are derived from roots, not the other way around, and it is often difficult to predict what the deep stem is from the surface stem. In Polish, we often have to resort to comparison with other Slavic and Indoeuropean languages to do that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for the reply.

As for the direction of the derivation, you're right. Perhaps I had a vague notion that the roots I chose might originally have had a mostly "verbal" flavour, but even then, my phrasing would still be wrong.

As for the prefixed-only forms, I know (I'm a Pole, actually). I chose them to illustrate that I'm interested in the phenomenon from the analytical POV.

I see that there might be no consensus on how to call those things, then, and perhaps for a good reason. I shall Google for deep stems instead in that case, hoping that it yields what I'm interested in (a list). 178.42.103.158 (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. Our own article on Nominalization refers to this as "nominalization with zero derivation", which is a self-contradictory nonsense term. Nominalization is by its very nature a form of derivation, so the article is describing essentially "deriviation without derivation".

Swan's treatment of the subject is a pretty good starting point, and the best one I have seen. He has made a pdf version available for downloading here: [[1]].

As for why pój and daż don's exist in Polish, it's probably because they never caught on in actual use in their unprefixed forms, not because of anything inherent in those stems. There are plenty of other stems that did catch on without prefixation, like "staż", for instance. Just because something can be formed and used doesn't mean that it must or will. That would make it more coincidence than anything else.

Also, concerning *daż and staż, I am hit by the similarity with Latin cognates "do dare DEDI datus" and "sto stare STETI status", and am guessing that the "ż" represents a Reduplication of the "d" or "t" in the deep stem. The reduplication in the Greek word "δίδωμι" ("I give") supports this. This is something that happened in Preindoeuropean rather than during the development of the separate languages.

Another thing to remember is that a lot of the phonetic change rules you will see in Polish were valid only during certain phases of the formation of the language, or from it's prehistory, and may not be productive now. The forms you see today are therefore fosiilized forms which do not conform to the rules of Modern Polish. You'll notice this a lot when dealing with deep stems. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobisdu, the term "deverbal" is used in this work, e.g. pp. 232-233, and all over the text.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paths are mundane[edit]

When reading Robert Mcfarlane's "The Old Ways", I find the following sentence quite odd:"Footpaths are mundane in the best sense of that word:worldly,open to all." Can you paraphrase it for me? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's playing on the usual meaning of 'mundane' - 'everyday, down-to-earth, commonplace' and its eytmology - 'worldly, earthly'. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

drawing my sight up and on and over[edit]

One more question about the wording of Robert Mcfarlane in his book "The Old Ways": I don't see why he juxtaposes "up","on" and "over" in the sentence "Paths and their markers have long worked on me like lures: drawing my sight up and on and over." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a rhetorical device; in casual speech one would only use two prepositions in a construction like that - usually 'up and over' as a set phrase. Using three emphasises the repetition and variety of the subject matter - in Tolkein's words, "the road goes ever on and on" (which is a similar construction). AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rhetorical device serves to emphasise the movement in the 'luring' image: he's saying that the paths alert him to the tempting possibilities awaiting him beyond his immediate sightline. They prompt him to raise his eyes (up), look further ahead (on), and consider what may be beyond the things currently in view (over). - Ka renjc 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation of Utsi[edit]

Does anyone know the pronunciation of Utsi as a Swedish name? How can it be marked by international phonetics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific individual named Utsi you are thinking of? I have lived in Sweden all my life and I have never heard of anyone with that name. According to SCB there are 132 Swedes with the family name "Utsi", and none with it as their given name. I would pronounce it as /ʊtsi/ (that is, roughly as "footsie" without the "f"), but I don't know for sure whether this is accurate. Gabbe (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk too soon[edit]

Why do we say "he spoke too soon" and not "he talked too soon". What is the difference in meaning that allows one as the idiom and not the other? IBE (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in English "talk" often means any kind of oral communication, while "speak" implies oral communication on a particular topic, especially an opinion on that topic. It is kind of a fine point. You can give a lecture, or a "talk", which is presumed to be informational, although it could be opinionated; or you can give a "speech", which is typically an opinion but could also be fact-based. You learn to do public speaking in a speech class. It's presumed that you already know how to talk. Although speech classes can also be used to improve talking skills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that makes an idiom an idiom is that it derives from habitual usage, not from logic. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It was said this way at one point and got repeated. It's just so. Dismas|^(talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A baby who started making relatively intelligible utterances at 3 months might be said to have "talked too soon", but not "spoken too soon". The thing with an idiom, which tricks new speakers (and talkers) of any language, is that synonyms don't work. It must be the exact formulation, verbatim; any other set of words, even if it's only one word different, or even if it's the same words in a different order, and even if it means pretty much exactly the same thing, is not the idiom. It has to be "six of one and half a dozen of the other". "Half a dozen of one and six of the other" simply will not do, unless you're intending to be noticed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, suppose you were captured by your enemies and wanted to deceive them. If you talked too soon under their "persuasion", you'd run the risk of not being believable. (So, you vill not cooperate? Ve have vays to make you ~~speak~~ talk.) Ain't English grand? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winning comment from Jack, finding the idiom that is about synonyms themselves. And for Clarityfiend, ok, all of this confusion is Canada's fault. There, you got it out of me. IBE (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-executing[edit]

What does the word "self-executing" mean? Is there some sort of legal meaning that a plebe like me couldn't possibly understand? context is here. Dismas|^(talk) 14:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this [2] help? (Not that I immediately see the relevance in the context of the court case you linked to, so that article might need a bit of explanation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the headnote of the case and rephrased the relevant portion of the article, which wasn't very clear. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your responses! Dismas|^(talk) 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Pleb' does not have an 'e' at the end. See Plebgate. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:plebe. ~~Also you might like to re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four.~~ Whoops, now I remember, he used proles instead of plebes — same idea though. --Trovatore (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, 'Pleb' and 'Plebe' have an entirely different meaning, at least in my dialect. 'Pleb' means 'the common people' and 'Plebe' (pronounced pleeb) means either 'untermensch' or means fuck all (because the untermensch we are referring to cannot identify themselves with anything that resembles human language - drugs, weapons, rape, and anything that will get them a bed and a room for free in some big place where what we call Prison Officers become mummy and daddy). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ko-Ko was expected, by the terms of his appointment, to be self-executing. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Instead, he got a life sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you casting aspersions on the beauty of Katisha's elbow? --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Reminds me of when the Spook appealed to the King of Id to reverse his life sentence. The King's response was "Very well, then. Death!". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]