Re: French and German (jara: An introduction)

Quoting Markus Miekk-oja <fam.miekk-oja@...>:

> > OK, there's _bruka_ which could go well here, and you could add a
> > thing
> > like _måste_ or whatnot. (has _bör_ a perfect? ;-))
>
> >That would be _har bort_, that's not a common form. Swedish modals tend
> to
> be
> lacking certain forms, which brings us to _måste_, whose infinitive
> (_måsta_)
> only exists in some northern dialects. For many people, _måste_ is the
> only
> from of this verb (I have three; _måste_, _har måst_, _hade måst_).
>
> You don't have a clean past, or does it coincide with present?
The past is _var tvungen_! In other words, no, in my 'lect this verb has no
past tense. Of course, _måste_ is formally past, but it's semantically non-
past.

> Me, I got,
> infinitive ti måst / ti mått
> present måst / mått
> past måsta / måtta
> perfect har måsta / måtta
> pluperfect hadd måsta / måtta
>
> bör has
> infinitive ti bourd, ti boul
> present bourdar
> past bourda
> perfect har bourda
> pluperfect hadd bourda
>
> This is one of those northern dialects, of course. (Just to back up
> Daniel's
> claim.)
>
> the mått- forms are not indigenous to my village.
>
> >But yes, _att bruka hoppas kunna äta_ works. That's four infinitives.
> _Att
> böra bruka hoppas kunna äta_ is straining my Sprachgefühl, but I
> wouldn't
> say
> it's ungrammatical.
>
> Ti bourd bryuk hoppas kun jäät?
> "Ti bourd bö'öv bryuk föshök hoppas vil kun jäät" - that's two more,
> but
> it's extreme. (This mastodont only could have uses in threatment of
> eating
> disorders - The patient ought (to need (to use (to try (to hope (to want
> (to
> be able (to eat)))))).
> (In english, and probably real Swedish, mxing need and ought, behöver
> och
> bör, doesn't make very much sense. In my dialect,  "need" - bö'öv, or
> bihöv
> (which hasn't got any distinct present ending) expresses more of a
> suggestion when used as an auxiliary.
Well, _han bör behöva_ is perfectly valid in my 'lect, only _bör_ then means
something like _torde_ then.

_Att böra behöva bruka försöka hoppas vilja kunna äta_ is, well, I guess
technically grammatical, but even in text I'd need to read it over many times
to figure what it means; as far as pragmatics are concerned, it's right out of
the chimney.

> > > > The futurum perfectum can get pretty bad; _han kommer att ha
> > > > kunnat prova köra go-kart_.
> >>
> >> See? That’s' what I mean.
>
> >But that's only two infinitives.
>
> It's three - att ha is one, prova is one köra is one. Always fun to have
> the
> auxiliry as an infinitive.
> I wonder whether forms like kunnat - blackout, can't recall their name
> -
> actually could be counted as a kind of infinitive (with relative
> tense).
You're, of course, right. Forgot to count that _ha_.

                                                          Andreas