Talk:Separable verbs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Example code
<?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>
Some discussion on this topic
- Summary
vblex(breek__vblex) "normal verbs" — these take the normal ge- prefix for forming the past participle, e.g. "gebreek", "geskryf", "gekyk", etc.vblex.uns(ontwikkel__vblex) "normal" verbs with unstressed prefixes, e.g. be-, ont-, her- — these do not take the ge- prefix, and have the same form in present, infinitive and past participle.- separable figurative verbs
- separable verbs
- Discussion
- What is the deal with stuff that ends with ~d/~de like verbree/d — are these actually different participles?
(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
