Welcome back c: I was worried this thread was turning into Double Latin
I hope it won’t turn into a Babele
You inspired me to make a proper breakdown of my sentence as well.
We are sailing to the city.
In oppidum nāvigāmus.
|in||Latin in covers both the English prepositions in and on. It also has some grammatical uses that I’m still getting to grips with, and this sentence employs one of them. Here it’s being used to indicate direction towards, to, or into a place.|
|oppidum||An oppidum was a fortified town. As Sanonius said, urbs, mūnicipium, colōnia, and cīvitās could also have been used in various contexts. The word is in the accusative case, apparently because that’s just how it’s done when you use it in this grammatical structure. Oppidum is explicitly singular (its plural is oppida). In Latin there was no linguistic distinction between definite nouns (“the city”) and indefinite nouns (“a city”).|
|nāvigāmus||The root of this word is nāvigō (to sail.) It derives from nāvis (ship). In Latin a verb can be conjugated to show person (first, second, third), pluralism, and over twenty tenses. Thus each verb can presumably accept over a hundred conjugations, making it extremely expressive. Therefore Latin rarely requires pronouns to be used. There are four conjugation patterns. Nāvigō is in the first conjugation, which is described at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_first_conjugation. We want the first-person plural form of the active indicative tense, which is nāvigāmus.|
PS. In Volapük, the first popular constructed language, verbs could be inflected in 1,584 ways.
How about a linguistic comparison table?
|Language||Number of noun inflections||Number of verb conjugations|
|English||2 (singular and plural)||3 (eg. sail, -ed, -ing) – also the remnants of an ablaut system|
|Latin||12 (nom. s. & pl., acc. s. & pl., gen. s. & p., dat. s. & pl., abl. s & pl., voc. s & pl.)*||Over 100(?) Verbs can express person, pluralism, and tense|
(*) In practice many of these are the same, eg. the vocative usually mirrors the nominative.
no, just て form is not “-ing”
and ています is polite form of ている
just て is used to tell someone to do something or to list events
Those are just the kind of corrections I’m looking for.
It was not clear to me if Te-form transformation is required before using ている for progressive.
If I understood well there is another step. If not please correct me.
|向か・って||mukatte||(TE-form of the verb)|
|向か・って・いる||mukatteiru||(progressive form, becomes a RU-verb)|
|向か・って・います||mukatteimasu||(polite form of the RU-verb)|
Or instead the Te-form is not required and does it is possible to transform any verb directly into progressive with ている?
EDIT: the answer is yes. I finally found a section of the Tae Kim grammar where this is explained clearly. The TE-form transformation is only the first step required to add ~いる and transform the verb into a RU-verb. So ~ている (one of the forms of progressive) requires - for the U-verb 向かう (“to sail”) - the transformations steps reported in the table above.
PS: I’m just using this post as an excuse to study Japanese (including errors and corrections).
EDIT 2 in another grammar (A Dictionary of Japanese Grammar, mentioned) is written:
When TE-verb is a motion verb such as iku ‘go’, kuru ‘come’ and kaeru ‘return’, the meaning of TE-verb ~iru is not ‘be ~ing’. For example, itte iru means ‘to have gone to some place and to still be there’. The following sentences provide examples:
Jiroo wa Amerika ni itte iru.
Jiro has gone to America and is there.
Bekku-san wa moo ie ni kaette imasu.
Mr. Beck has already returned home and is there.
So, following this rule, since ‘to sail’ is a motion verb the rule should apply as well. Consequently, the original sentence should be translated:
watashitachi wa kooshi ni mukatta imasu.
We have sailed to the city (and we are still there).
I’m a little bit confused now.
Probably sailing is not properly a motion verb but a way in which we reached the city.
Can someone more expert than me clarify?
ANSWER (thanks to @Vsotvep):
向かう is not a motion verb, but it expresses a state-of-being, namely the state of being on your way somewhere.
て+いる is one of ways to tell about ongoing event, it can be shortened to てる
there is also (verb -> い form)+ながら - while doing, something also happens
japanese verbs can have a lot of endings at the same time, some parts are added, some are replaced
Russian is easier
Oh my god!.. are you trying to discourage me?
People afraid of Russian language because we have complex word ending system
Also people afraid of hieroglyphs in Japanese, but behind that fear they miss that Japanese also has complex word ending system
だ - (translation) is / are
じゃありませんでした - is + negative + polite + past - (translation) wasn’t
in Russian word endings always short and only replace each other (that’s why there are many)
in Japanese there are replacement AND adding
there is also infinity list of endings in dictionary that are not fit in any general rule
So you are confirming that Japanese is harder than Russian!
Have you seen the EDIT 2 in the previous post?
Any idea on how to deal with what I found in the grammar?
I’m 20 kyu at NihonGo, no idea
(‘Nihon’ - that’s how Japanese people themselves call Japan, ‘Go’ - language)
Jaa - ri - ma - sen - de - shi - da, seven syllables, that’s a little heavy yeah.
In Latin I think we would conjugate nōn fuī, “not was”, depending on the plurality and person.
eg. Mēus nōn fuī frigus, I wasn’t cold.
9 ‘syllables’ or morae, actually
Slightly more polite is to use 10: De-wa-a-ri-ma-se-n-de-shi-ta
Morae are not the same as syllables.
True, but nobody counts syllables in Japanese
Your post equating syllables and morae is misleading to other people who don’t know Japanese, though :<
But so is your post talking about syllables in Japanese
No, it’s not. There really are seven syllables in jaarimasendeshida. It’s just that some of them have multiple morae.
6 actually, deshida, despite being 3 morae, is only 2 syllables… not that japanese considers syllables as a thing
Fair distinction on deshida. How are they pronouncing that then? And again, just because Japanese doesn’t acknowledge “syllables” (even though ofc they are pronouncing syllables) doesn’t mean that syllables are morae. That is simply incorrect.