Re: "There can be"

on 4/11/08 2:59 PM, Mark J. Reed at markjreed@MAIL.COM wrote:

> D'oh, of course "haber".  I'm going to plead typo on that one.
>
> Merci for the French.  "Peut", not "peux" - you'd think I could
> remember my silent conjugation differences. :)
>
> So far my latest conlang has a monomorphemic "there is/are" particle
> that doesn't pattern as a normal verb form, so I'm exploring the
> borders of how it can be extended, looking for natlangish
> inspiration..
Hebrew also uses a monomorphemic "there is/are" particle (in the present
tense). But for "there can be", you drop it, and just say:

yakhol lihyot (rak  eHad)
can    be      only one

'yakhol' is in the masculine singular form of the present tense, regardless
of what noun may follow, and 'lihyot' is an infinitive.

Similarly, 'there should/must be" is 'tsarikh lihyot', with the first verb
again in the masculine singular.

> On 4/11/08, Douglas Koller <laokou@...> wrote:
>> From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
>>
>>> How do langs with various other idiomatic renderings of "there is/are"
>>> convey the idea "there can be"? (c.f. Favorite catchphase of
>>> fantasy-struck boy-children of the 80's, "there can be only one").
>>> Would "se puede hacer" send the right message in Spanish?  What the
>>> heck can you do with "I'll y a" in French - "I'll y peux avoir"?
>>
>> French: il peut y avoir -- "there can be only one": il ne peut y en avoir
>> qu'un(e)
>>
>> Spanish: I don't know if the "se" *has* to be there; however "haber", not
>> "hacer", surely.
>>
>> Kou
>>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Josh Roth

Reply