Re: savoir-connaître (was: Re: can-may)

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 01:02:14AM -0500, # 1 wrote:
> I think that it is simple for conlangers like you whom(who?) know how cases
> work.
That's "who".  It's the subject of the dependent verb "know", and therefore
goes in the nominative case.  Plus, almost nobody bothers with "whom"
anymore; using "who" universally is typical and less likely to be
construed as an error than using "whom" when "who" is required.

> "por" introduces the benefactive case
> "para" introduces the causal case
Sure.  For instance, "What did you get for me for Christmas?"
would presumably use "por" for the first "for" and "para" in the second.
But I'm not sure that "para" is used that way in Spanish.
Preopositions are inherently idiomatic, because different
cultures extend their originally-spatial meanings using different
sets of metaphors.  There are lots of idiosyncracies, like the fact that
in English you dream "about" someone while in Spanish you dream
"con" them, etc.

> so "le hace por usted" is "he does it for you"
>    "le hace para te ver" is "he does it to see you"
It'd be "lo hace", not "le hace".  And I think the second construction
would more usually be "para verte".  Plus, you switched
politeness levels as well as prepositions. :)

> (it's stupid I wanted to use "hacer" at the first person and I didn't
> remember what it was!)
It's certainly not stupid to forget such a thing. But it's "hago".

> but here [with ser/estar], the difference is easier to understand I think
The theoretical difference that you are taught is easy to understand.
In practice there are plenty of edge cases.  Plus, there are the
grammaticalized uses that you simply have to learn - estar with the
present participle, ser with the past participle (except when the past
participle is used with haber, of course).

Let me try my hand at translating your sentences into French.  Most of
the variants have little or nothing to do with the future tense; the
time marker word takes care of saying when the action takes place, and
the rest is the same as if it were "today" instead of "tomorrow".


> Tomorrow I go to work
Most languages allow this very construction, do they not?  Can one not
say in French, "Demain je vais au bureau"?

> Tomorrow I must go to work
> Tomorrow I should go to work
> Tomorrow I have to go to work
I'd translate all of these into French as "Demain je dois aller au
bureau." The difference is only one of degree; "must" implies a stronger
obligation than "should", while "have to" is less specific and could
cover either of the other degrees depending on context.

> Tomorrow I need to go to work
Demain j'ai besoin d'aller au bureau.


> Tomorrow I can go to work
> Tomorrow I may go to work
As earlier messages on this topic showed, these are the same in French,
as well: Demain je peux aller au bureau.

> Tomorrow I might go to work
Demain je pourrais aller au bureau.


> Tomorrow I shall go to work
> Tomorrow I will go to work
There is a subtle distinction here, and it is exactly backwards on
opposite sides of the Atlantic, but most speakers ignore it completely
and just stick with one or the other - that being "will" in the US,
where "I shall" is rare and sounds somewhat flowery.  Usually, either
one just means simple futurity anyway:

Demain j'irai au bureau.

> Tomorrow I would go to work
Demain j'irais au bureau.

> Tomorrow I want to go to work
Demian je veux aller au bureau.

> Tomorrow I get to go to work
Demain on me permet d'aller au bureau

> Tomorrow I do go to work
The same as simple "je vais", only emphasis added.

> Tomorrow I am going to work
English use of the progressive vs the simple present is admittedly a
complicated topic which has never been adequately reduced to rule form;
but it's not really related to the future tense.  This one, however:

> Tomorrow I am going to go to work
Is AFAIK exactly parallel to "Demain je vais aller au bureau."

-Marcos

Reply