🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2720022@otter.hpl.hp.com> sjmz@otter.hpl.hp.com (Stefek Zaba) writes:
>Hesitantly, I'd like to offer some closely-related examples to the
>(testily) debated Russian constructions from Polish.
>[..]
>I have
>one-and-a-half Polish analogues to the textbook examples where there's a
>DATIVE+infinitive construction.

Sorry to criticize this interesting posting, but some of the examples given
by Stefek are simply not correct.

>I can also coerce the example
>    Emu ne ponjat' etogo
>    Him-DAT NEG understand-INFIN this-GEN
>    He can't understand this
>    [can]
>into something analagous
>    To mu sie nie da zrozumiec
>    [This-NOM him-DAT reflexive-particle NEG give-future-3rd-sing
>                                                understand-INFIN]
This is not a Polish sentence.

1. Since the verb is negated, "to" ("this") _has_ to be in genitive
   (just like in Russian).
2. The construction "nie da sie" (NEG give-future-3rd-sg refl.), which
   in this context means "it is not possible" or "one can't", can't be 
   used with verbs like "zrozumiec'" (understand).  It can be, however, 
   used with the verb meaning "to explain" ("wytlumaczyc'"):
   		Tego mu sie nie da wytlumaczyc'.
	(It is impossible to explain this to him.)

Interestingly enough, if you leave out "mu" (he-DAT), Stefek's sentence
becomes almost ("this" has to be in gen.) correct:
		*To mu sie nie da zrozumiec.
		Tego sie nie da zrozumiec.
	("It is impossible to understand this" or "One can't understand 
	this".)
Just as correct as the latter above is:
   		Tego sie nie da wytlumaczyc'.
	("It is impossible to explain this", "One can't explain this".)

>My translation uses "will", as the
>original Polish uses a perfective (zrozumiec); you *could* say /To mu
>sie nie daje rozumiec/, using a present-tense of the auxilliary.  This
>is even less natural-sounding, though still acceptable, than the
>slightly tortured /To mu sie nie da zrozumiec/. 

No, you could *not* say "To mu sie nie daje rozumiec'".  Neither this
example nor the previous one are acceptable in Polish.

>Where you're thinking
>about a specific individual, you'd be MUCH more likely to use a
>non-passive voice:
>    On tego nie zrozumie          He won't understand this
>    On tego nie rozumie           He doesn't understand this

That's correct, but:

>If you're not thinking of an individual, but asserting something about
>the comprehensibility of something, then the natural construction *is*
>to use the passive
>    To sie nie da zrozumiec       This is not to be understood

Incorrect: "tego" (gen.), not "to" (nom.); otherwise correct.

>Introducing a (dative) "subject" (ha! is it not, instead, an indirect
>object?) into this gets us back to the starting-point
>    To mu sie nie da zrozumiec    This is not to be understood by him

... which is definitely _not_ acceptable in Polish.

However, it is possible to find examples of dat.+infinitive in Polish.
For instance, the verb "udac' sie" ("to succeed", "to achieve") takes
dative:
   		Tego mu sie nie uda zrobic'.
	[This-GEN he-DAT refl. NEG succeed-future-3rd-sing do-INF]
	("He will not be able to do this/He will not succeed in doing this".)
This time, the deletion of "mu" (he-DAT) is not possible:
   		*Tego sie nie uda zrobic'.
You have to say:
   		Tego sie nie _da_ zrobic'.
	("One can't do this/It is impossible to  do this.")

----------------

>I can also find something vaguely analogous to the example
>    Zavtra, rovno v vosem' chasov, vsem byt' zdes'.
>    Tomorrow at eight sharp everyone must be here  (everyone-DAT be-INFIN)
>
>This would be
>    Jutro nalezy sie wszystkim wstac o osmej.

This would mean "Tomorrow everyone is entitled to get up at eight"
which doesn't really make much sense.  One might prune this sentence to
create an acceptable but somewhat awkward:
		Jutro nalezy wstac o osmej.
	("Tomorrow [somebody, perhaps everyone - it depends on the
	context] should be up at eight.")

>Note that the infinitive "nalezyc" declined above means "belong", 
>whilst "nalezyc sie" means "be entitled to",

That's only one meaning; 3rd-sg "nalezy" and "nalezy sie" mean also 
"one should".

>as in
>    Mi sie nalezy sto dollarow      I'm entitled to $100
>    i-DAT reflexive-particle be-entitled-to-PRES-3rd-Sing $100

No, not "mi", but "mnie".  Both mean the same, but at the beginning of
a sentence you have to use "mnie".  (Analogously for 2nd sg and for 3rd
sg masc. - but not for 3rd sg. fem., nor for 1/2/3 plural.) Nonetheless, 
the sentence sounds awkward; "Nalezy mi sie sto dolarow" is much better.

>A couple of other constructions off the top of my head in which the
>apparent subject isn't in the nominative case:
>
>    Mi nie robi roznicy             It makes no difference to me
>    Mi              nie        robi     roznicy
>    1st-sing-DAT    negation   makes    (a) difference - Sing-GEN
>    ("Nie robi mi roznicy" is a more natural sentence order here, but you'd
>    use the one I give above for emphasis, as in "It doesn't matter to *ME*".

But at the beginning of the sentence, "mnie" must be used, not "mi".
Moreover, the following:
		Mnie _to_ nie robi roznicy.
	("It makes no difference to me.")
sounds _much_ better.

>    Mi jest zimno                   I'm [experiencing] cold
>    Mi sie snil snieg               I dreamt of snow
>               ("Snow dreamt itself to me")

Somawhat awkward, even with "mnie".

>    Mi            sie                 snil                  snieg
>    1st-sing-DAT  reflexive-particle  dream-past-3rd-sing   snow-NOM

Again, "mnie", not "mi".  Even so, "Mnie jest zimno" sounds awkward.
"Zimno mi jest" is what a native speaker is most likely to use; or
simply "Zimno mi".

>This example is firmly one where the sentence-order flexibility
>is on show: you could (with little if any semantic effect) equally
>acceptably assert
>    Snieg mi sie snil
>    Snil mi sie snieg

The latter is the most natural and neutral.

>and a few other orders also work, though sounding a little poetic or
>affected:
>    Snieg sie mi snil
>    Snil sie mi snieg
>Most of the other 4!=24 combinations are beyond acceptability, to
>varying degrees...

(You mean permutations.)  Some of them are acceptable in poetry.


-Margaret Mikulska
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu