Talk:Separable verbs - Revision history

79.156.80.145 at 11:00, 11 December 2009

2009-12-11T11:00:14Z

Francis Tyers at 12:34, 4 November 2007

2007-11-04T12:34:14Z

Francis Tyers: /* Some discussion on this topic */

2007-09-07T23:29:15Z

Some discussion on this topic

Francis Tyers: /* Some discussion on this topic */

2007-09-07T23:28:55Z

Some discussion on this topic

Francis Tyers at 23:27, 7 September 2007

2007-09-07T23:27:40Z

Francis Tyers at 23:26, 7 September 2007

2007-09-07T23:26:56Z

Francis Tyers: New page: ==Some discussion on this topic== ;Summary ;Discussion

 (20:12:13) ftyers: btw, quick afrikaans question: "astronomers suppress the discovery" = "sterrekundiges druk die ontdekking...

2007-08-25T19:58:00Z

New page: ==Some discussion on this topic== ;Summary ;Discussion <pre> (20:12:13) ftyers: btw, quick afrikaans question: "astronomers suppress the discovery" = "sterrekundiges druk die ontdekking...

New page

==Some discussion on this topic==

;Summary

;Discussion

<pre>
(20:12:13) ftyers: btw, quick afrikaans question: "astronomers suppress the discovery" = "sterrekundiges druk die ontdekking onder." ?
(20:12:58) anon : sterrekundiges onderdruk die ontdekking
(20:13:07) ftyers: hmm
(20:13:20) anon : some seperable verbs are not always seperated
(20:13:22) ftyers: when would you use druk NP onder (if ever?)
(20:13:36) anon : druk NP onder = sounds more literal to me
(20:13:41) anon : onderdruk NP = more figurative
(20:13:50) ftyers: is the former valid ?
(20:13:55) anon : the astronomers do not physically press down
(20:14:01) anon : they press down figuratively
(20:14:02) ftyers: aye
(20:14:12) anon : which former?
(20:14:23) ftyers: the druk NP onder combination
(20:14:31) ftyers: can it mean "suppress" or must it mean "press under" ?
(20:14:59) anon : druk NP onder can't mean "suppress".
(20:15:08) ftyers: ok
(20:15:30) anon : other examples:
(20:15:36) anon : ondersoek = investigate
(20:15:41) ftyers: how about aansoek = apply ?
(20:15:45) anon : soek onder = seek under(neath)
(20:16:12) anon : no, but "aansoek" is not a verb... it requires aother verb, "doen". To apply = om aansoek te doen
(20:16:25) ftyers: ah ok
(20:16:32) anon : onderduik = to escape (the police)
(20:16:36) anon : duik onder = dive under
(20:17:10) ftyers: can you give me some opposite examples ?
(20:17:27) anon : I don't understand ?
(20:17:46) ftyers: some examples of where a separable verb must be split
(20:18:53) anon : tricky....
(20:19:38) anon : most seperable verbs combine with a preposition, and it depends mostly on the sentence construction whether it is seperate or joined.
(20:20:02) ftyers: hmm
(20:20:53) ftyers: does it depend on if the verb has another meaning or not ?
(20:20:56) ftyers: e.g. aankondig
(20:20:58) ftyers: = announce
(20:21:04) ftyers: but 'kondig' does not mean anything on its own
(20:21:19) anon : could be...
(20:21:32) ftyers: let me think of another example
(20:21:37) anon : opspoor, spoor op, but spoor does mean track
(20:21:47) ftyers: ok, aanrand
(20:21:51) ftyers: = attack
(20:21:54) ftyers: 'rand' doesn't mean anything
(20:22:03) ftyers: aanklag
(20:22:18) anon : klag does mean something (klagte = complaint)
(20:22:27) ftyers: but not as a verb?
(20:22:34) anon : quite right
(20:23:46) anon : yes but aanklag isn't a verb either
(20:23:54) ftyers: it isn't ?
(20:24:09) anon : aankla = to report someone
(20:24:17) anon : aanklag = complaint/report about someone
(20:24:21) ftyers: http://www.rieme.co.za/woordeboek.asp?l=1&woord=aanklag
(20:24:24) ftyers: i don't know if this is any good
(20:24:35) ftyers: but i understood it also meant "to charge someone" (with an offence)
(20:25:03) anon : to charge someone = iemand aankla
(20:25:22) anon : the URL you gave only gives nouns (some of them look like verbs, but they're nouns)
(20:25:36) anon : charge = noun in this case
(20:25:36) ftyers: hmm quite right
(20:26:06) ftyers: i had it marked as 'check' aswell :)
(20:26:08) ftyers: glad i did
(20:27:43) anon : one way to spot something like "ondersoek" is that the past tense would be "het ondersoek" or "het geondersoek", not "het onder gesoek".
(20:28:06) anon : het ondersoek = investigated
(20:28:10) anon : het onder gesoek = looked under
(20:28:31) ftyers: how about "aanrand" (aangerand)
(20:29:10) ftyers: e.g. "Polisie rand glo sakeman aan"
(20:29:39) anon : yes... I'm afraid we might have missed each other here.
(20:29:52) ftyers: quite possible :)
(20:30:02) anon : aanrand and ondersoek are two types of words -- ondersoek looks like a seperable verb but isn't.
(20:30:06) ftyers: aha
(20:30:12) anon : aanrand is a seperable verb
(20:30:26) ftyers: and onderdruk is not a separable verb ?
(20:30:35) anon : ondersoek looks like a seperable verb beacue it could be a seperatble verb if it had a different meaing.
(20:30:43) anon : onderdruk = to suppress = not seperable
(20:30:47) ftyers: ok
(20:30:52) anon : onderdruk = to press down = seperable
(20:31:16) anon : so it is important to know the meaning
(20:31:19) ftyers: aye
(20:31:36) anon : (although I must say that when I write "press down" I would probably write "onder druk")
(20:32:01) anon : Hy wou haar kop onder druk (he wanted to press her head under)
(20:32:27) ftyers: and "he wanted to suppress her story" ?
(20:32:42) anon : Hy wou haar storie onderdruk.
(20:33:04) ftyers: and "he suppresses her story" ?
(20:33:06) anon : (this is where computers can't tell context -- a woman has a head, but not a story)
(20:33:17) ftyers: (sorry, should have given a simpler example)
(20:33:18) anon : Hy onderdruk haar storie
(20:33:38) ftyers: ok
(20:33:56) ftyers: to be honest, i expected to have to go over verbs a few times before i understood properly
(20:34:23) ftyers: but is there an easy way to find out if a verb is "truely separable" or not ?
(20:34:25) anon : unfortunately afrikaans is less systematic than esperanto
(20:34:30) ftyers: :)
(20:35:04) anon : not really... unless you have a list of non-seperable verbs
(20:35:28) ftyers: can you think of a verb with onder- that is 'truely' separable ?
(20:36:03) anon : what do you mean by "truly"? Do you mean that it will always be seperatble?
(20:36:10) ftyers: yes
(20:36:11) ftyers: well
(20:36:17) anon : difficult
(20:36:18) ftyers: like aankondig
(20:36:25) anon : ondersteun = figurative
(20:36:31) anon : ondergrawe = figurative
(20:36:38) ftyers: figurative isn't a verb o__O
(20:36:57) anon : see, all the exapmles I can think of, are not only seperable
(20:37:09) ftyers: could you say for example: "sterrekundiges aankondig die ontdekking."
(20:37:15) anon : no
(20:37:22) ftyers: ok
(20:37:32) anon : but I'm trying to think of ones with "onder"
(20:37:59) ftyers: k
(20:39:55) anon : I'm looking at a list of words here that start with "onder", and I still can't find any truly seperable verbs with onder
(20:40:12) ftyers: ok
(20:40:42) ftyers: how about onderloop ?
(20:40:48) anon : there are a few verbs that have the form onder + ge + something
(20:40:51) ftyers: aha
(20:40:56) ftyers: thats what i was just looking at :)
(20:41:07) anon : but you can't use them in the form something NP onder
(20:41:14) ftyers: ah
(20:41:32) anon : onderwaardeer (undervalue)
(20:41:56) anon : onderspoel (to erode from underneath)
(20:42:28) ftyers: ok
(20:42:30) anon : aha... one exception: onderkry
(20:42:35) ftyers: exceptions! :D
(20:42:38) ftyers: ok
(20:42:46) ftyers: kry = get
(20:42:48) anon : but onderkry has a figurative meaning only
(20:42:50) ftyers: onderkry = get under
(20:42:51) ftyers: ?
(20:43:06) anon : onderkry = to beat, to lose against
(20:43:08) ftyers: ok
(20:43:29) anon : jy moenie dat die probleme jou onderkry nie = you mustn't let the problems get you down
(20:43:55) anon : die probleme kry hom onder = the problems are getting him down, the problems are causing him to fail
(20:44:50) ftyers: ok, so kinds of verbs i have come across so far:
(20:45:12) ftyers: 1. "truely separable" ones, e.g. aankondig
(20:45:21) ftyers: 2. "partially separable" ones, e.g. onderkry
(20:45:29) ftyers: 3. "separable looking" ones, e.g. ondersoek
(20:46:02) anon : 3.1 seperable if literal meaning
(20:46:10) anon : 3.2 not seperable if figurative meaning
(20:46:19) ftyers: 4. "non-separable", e.g. registreer
(20:47:02) ftyers: 1. take the past like het NP aan-ge-kondig
(20:47:13) ftyers: 2. take the past like het NP onder-ge-kry
(20:47:21) ftyers: 3. take the past like het NP ondersoek
(20:47:35) ftyers: 4. take the past like het NP geregistreer
(20:47:46) anon : 3.1 sometimes het NP ge-ondersoek, depending on whether the author is in love with "ge".
(20:48:23) ftyers: ones in be- are almost always like 3.
(20:48:28) ftyers: only they can't take ge-
(20:48:42) ftyers: same goes for ones in ver-
(20:49:07) anon : yes, it was an old spelling rule... be, ge, her, ver, ont
(20:49:23) ftyers: e.g. "i make that" = "ek vervaardig dat", "i made that" = "ek het dat vervaardig"
(20:49:38) anon : yes
(20:49:44) anon : except that "dat" is dutch
(20:49:47) ftyers: oops
(20:49:48) ftyers: sorry :)
(20:49:59) anon : i make that = ek vervaardig dit
(20:50:01) ftyers: dit
(20:50:02) ftyers: ok
(20:50:11) anon : i make it = ek vervaardig dit
(20:50:29) anon : i make that thing = ek vervaardig daardie ding
(20:50:44) anon : (can't use daardie without a noun)
(20:50:50) ftyers: k
(20:51:00) ftyers: ok, this makes things clearer
(20:51:11) ftyers: the ones that will cause the most trouble are 1 & 2
(20:51:15) anon : strictly speaking you can't use "hierdie" without a noun either, but under influence of English it is more ocmmon now
(20:51:30) anon : this house is big = hierdie huis is groot
(20:51:44) ftyers: but splitting verbs into the categories may prove difficult
(20:51:46) anon : this is big = hierdie [ding] is groot
(20:51:54) anon : yes
(20:52:45) anon : I think most of the figurative #3 words woudl have seperate entries in a dictionary
(20:52:50) ftyers: yes
(20:52:58) ftyers: that won't really be a problem
(20:53:06) ftyers: but figurative #3 are like #2 words ?
(20:53:10) ftyers: *Verbs
(20:54:07) anon : figurative #3 verbs can't be split
(20:54:12) ftyers: ah
(20:54:12) ftyers: sorry
(20:54:13) anon : literal #3 can be split
(20:54:15) ftyers: i mean literal
(20:54:17) ftyers: yes
(20:54:18) ftyers: right
(20:55:16) anon : do you have a long list of afrikaans words (without meanings)?
(20:55:34) ftyers: yes
(20:55:38) anon : k
(20:55:45) ftyers: 159710 afrikaans-meester-utf8.txt
(20:55:59) anon : wspel.co.za = 350 afr words
(20:56:03) anon : 350 k
(20:56:03) ftyers: they are forms, not lemmata
(20:56:17) anon : okay
(20:56:40) ftyers: (meaning mine
(20:56:44) ftyers: don't know about the other
</pre>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Example code==
+<pre>
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
+<transfer>
+<section-def-cats>
+  <def-cat n="default"> <!-- Catch all words -->
+    <cat-item tags="*"/>
+  </def-cat>
+  <def-cat n="sepverb">
+    <cat-item tags="verb.sep.*"/>
+  </def-cat>
+  <def-cat n="sepverb_part">
+    <cat-item tags="part.sep"/>
+  </def-cat>
+</section-def-cats>
+<section-def-attrs>
+  <def-attr n="tags">
+    <attr-item tags="vblex.pri.p2.pl"/>
+    <attr-item tags="vblex.pri.p2.sg"/>
+    <attr-item tags="vblex.pri.p1.pl"/>
+    <attr-item tags="vblex.pri.p1.sg"/>
+  </def-attr>
+</section-def-attrs>
+<section-def-vars>
+  <def-var n="buffer" v=""/>
+  <def-var n="verb_lemh"/>
+  <def-var n="verb_lemq"/>
+  <def-var n="verb_rest"/>
+  <def-var n="verb_seen_sep"/>
+  <def-var n="verb_seen_part"/>
+</section-def-vars>
+<section-rules>
+  <rule comment="REGLA: SEP PART">
+     <pattern>
+       <pattern-item n="sepverb_part"/>
+     </pattern>
+     <action>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_seen_part"/>
+         <lit v="true"/>
+       </let>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_lemh"/>
+         <concat>
+           <var n="verb_lemh"/>
+           <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="lem"/>
+         </concat>
+       </let>
+     </action>
+  </rule>
+  <rule comment="REGLA: SEP VERB">
+     <pattern>
+       <pattern-item n="sepverb"/>
+     </pattern>
+     <action>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_seen_sep"/>
+         <lit v="true"/>
+       </let>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_lemh"/>
+         <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="lemh"/>
+       </let>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_lemq"/>
+         <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="lemq"/>
+       </let>
+       <let>
+         <var n="verb_rest"/>
+         <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="tags"/>
+       </let>
+     </action>
+  </rule>
+  <rule comment="REGLA: DEFAULT">
+     <pattern>
+       <pattern-item n="default"/>
+     </pattern>
+     <action>
+       <choose>
+         <when>
+           <test>
+             <and>
+               <equal>
+                 <var n="verb_seen_sep"/>
+                 <lit v="true"/>
+               </equal>
+               <equal>
+                 <var n="verb_seen_part"/>
+                 <lit v="true"/>
+               </equal>
+             </and>
+           </test>
+           <out>
+             <lu>
+               <var n="verb_lemh"/>
+               <var n="verb_lemq"/>
+               <var n="verb_rest"/>
+             </lu>
+             <b/>
+             <lu>
+               <var n="buffer"/>
+             </lu>
+           </out>
+         </when>
+         <when>
+           <test>
+             <and>
+               <equal>
+                 <var n="verb_seen_sep"/>
+                 <lit v="true"/>
+               </equal>
+               <not>
+                 <equal>
+                   <var n="verb_seen_part"/>
+                   <lit v="true"/>
+                 </equal>
+               </not>
+             </and>
+           </test>
+           <let>
+             <var n="buffer"/>
+             <concat>
+               <var n="buffer"/>
+               <lit v="^"/>
+               <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="whole"/>
+               <lit v="$"/>
+             </concat>
+           </let>
+         </when>
+         <otherwise>
+           <out>
+             <lu>
+               <clip pos="1" side="sl" part="whole"/>
+             </lu>
+           </out>
+         </otherwise>
+       </choose>
+     </action>
+  </rule>
+</section-rules>
+</transfer>
+</pre>
 ==Some discussion on this topic==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ;Discussion
+* What is the deal with stuff that ends with ~d/~de like verbree/d &mdash; are these actually different participles?
 <pre>

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ;Summary
-#<code>vblex</code> (breek__vblex) "normal verbs" &mdash; these take the normal ''ge-'' prefix for forming the past participle, e.g. "gebreek", "geskryf", etc.
+#<code>vblex</code> (breek__vblex) "normal verbs" &mdash; these take the normal ''ge-'' prefix for forming the past participle, e.g. "gebreek", "geskryf", "gekyk", etc.
 #<code>vblex.uns</code> (ontwikkel__vblex)  "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. ''be-'', ''ont-'', ''her-'' &mdash; these do not take the ''ge-'' prefix, and have the same form in present, infinitive and past participle.
 # separable figurative verbs

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ;Summary
-#<code>vblex</code> (breek__vblex) "normal verbs"
+#<code>vblex</code> (breek__vblex) "normal verbs" &mdash; these take the normal ''ge-'' prefix for forming the past participle, e.g. "gebreek", "geskryf", etc.
-#<code>vblex.uns</code> (ontwikkel__vblex)  "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. ''be-'', ''ont-'', ''her-''
+#<code>vblex.uns</code> (ontwikkel__vblex)  "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. ''be-'', ''ont-'', ''her-'' &mdash; these do not take the ''ge-'' prefix, and have the same form in present, infinitive and past participle.
 # separable figurative verbs
 # separable verbs

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ;Summary
-# "normal verbs" (breek__vblex), <code>vblex</code>
+#<code>vblex</code> (breek__vblex) "normal verbs"
-# "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. ''be-'', ''ont-'', ''her-'' (ontwikkel__vblex) <code>vblex.uns</vblex>
+#<code>vblex.uns</code> (ontwikkel__vblex)  "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. ''be-'', ''ont-'', ''her-''
 # separable figurative verbs
 # separable verbs