|
|
Dutch is easier and more useful than Swedish?
>> You could say it without. 'Er ist am Schlafen'. So it's much the same as the Dutch then, both languages roughly translated into English as 'He is on the sleeping' and 'I am on the my hands washing'. <<
Saying it without makes it loose the tense. It means "he's sleeping". Not "he's sleeping (NOW)" It's not the same
>>Saying it without makes it loose the tense. It means "he's sleeping". Not "he's sleeping (NOW)"
It's not the same << The progressive tense isn't only used to refer to something which is happening right now, just to an action which is ongoing. You could say in English 'When Jane is speaking' and it wouldn't necessarily mean Jane is speaking right now. Maybe the Dutch version does only refer to something happening right at the time of speaking, but that's not the definition of a progressive tense, is it?
How come French lacks the progressive tense like Portugese, Spanish , Italian and Romanian have? It is supposed to be a core-feature of languages deriving from Latin, all of them use -ndo like English -ing.
No, Dutch can be both exact and ambiguous. The exact part is a progressive tense ...
Dutch does have a progressive tense, analogous to the English form:
the verb zijn (to be) + the present participle eg. "Het schip is zinkende" = 'The ship is sinking' although this form is not the usual way of creating the progressive, it's usually for effect <<It is supposed to be a core-feature of languages deriving from Latin>> From what I understand, Latin did not use a progressive tense based on the verb 'be' plus the present participle. Therefore, the pregressive 'be' + -ndo in the romance languages did not stem from Latin (wasn't inherited from Latin). These languages most likely developed this feature later in their development.
<< How come French lacks the progressive tense like Portugese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian have? It is supposed to be a core-feature of languages deriving from Latin, all of them use -ndo like English -ing.. >>
-- Romanian doesn't use it. For Catalan and Occitan, I don't know. In the Germanic group only English has it. A likely explanation is THERE: http://antimoon.com/forum/t11463.htm Standard Average European Sprachbund: "German, Dutch, French, Occitan and the Northern Italian languages at the core of the [SAE] sprachbund"
Going back to the first question I think Swedish would be nicer to learn, it's true that not a lot of people speak it (and practically all the Swedish speak English perfectly good) but it will let you understand Norwegian and Danish very good too and in the end Swedish are quite proud of their culture and of their language. I personally love Holland too but I always notice that the Dutch always tend to be very "international", sometimes you can even mistake them for Americans, they always feel like they have to hide their language, when in Holland everyone will talk to you in English even if you start in Dutch because they think it's unbelieveble that somebody actually studies their language.
Eventually Swedish grammar is very easy: it only has two genders (en/ett also like Dutch de/het), at the 3rd singular person of the verb you don't even have to put -s like in English (they verb remains always the same) and there are no grammatical cases. In a scale of difficulty I'd put German (difficult) - Dutch (medium) - Swedish (easy), because Dutch still retains some german features and didn't undergo a simplification like Swedish or English did.
>>when in Holland everyone will talk to you in English even if you start in Dutch because they think it's unbelieveble that somebody actually studies their language<<
Actually they do that because the Dutch uttered by foreigners is often not understandable.
<< the Dutch always tend to be very "international", sometimes you can even mistake them for Americans, they always feel like they have to hide their language, when in Holland everyone will talk to you in English even if you start in Dutch >>
-- I agree. But don't forget that about 1/3 of Dutch speakers in Europe are Flemish. It's a different story there. In Flanders everybody will be delighted if a foreigner talks to them in Dutch, even when they are fluent in French and/or English (most of them are). Flanders claims to be the at the real heart of Dutch culture. Their accent is sweeter IMHO (but I don't want to start an argument with Dutchmen who may not agree). Yes, Swedish is eerily easy.
Guest : « Thats not a progressive tense because you have to use "gerade" (=now) ».
La forme anglaise <to be V#ing> n'est pas un "temps progressif" non plus, et ce pour au moins deux raisons : 1] au contraire du présent "simple" et du prétérite, elle n'est pas un temps automorphologisé (ein Tempus) à proprement parler (à l'instar du "futur" <will + V> ou du "present perfect" <have + V#ed>), mais plutôt une locution verbale composée de l'auxiliaire {être} suivie d'un verbe lexical suffixé à l'aide d'un suffixe d'origine nominale (rapprocher An <#ing> de Al <#ung>, aujourd'hui et en vieil-anglais) ; 2] cette construction périphrastique n'est pas "progressive" car son emploi ne se limite pas à l'expression de la "progression". Ainsi, comparer An <it costs an arm and a leg> {ça coûte les yeux de la tête = es kostet ein Vermögen = costa un'occhio della testa} avec An <it is costing an arm and a leg>, qui ne veut pas dire *{c'est en train de coûter les yeux de la tête = zurzeit kostet es ein Vermögen = sta costando un'occhio della testa}. Mais plutôt ceci : {ça coûte les yeux de la tête, vraiment = es kostet ein echtes Vermögen = costa veramente un'occhio della testa}. Ou encore : {ça coûte la peau des fesses} (dans un registre volontairement plus familier à valeur emphatique, par contraste avec le registre non-marqué → <(...) les yeux de la tête> ou <(...) un argent fou>). En clair la forme "progressive" anglaise est susceptible de s'appliquer aux verbes lexicaux dénués de tout caractère progressif, comme les verbes d'état tels que <coûter>. Mais même avec un verbe dynamique (et perfectif) tel que <partir>, la phrase An <I'm leaving tomorrow> ne signifie pas *{je suis en train de partir demain} mais plutôt {je pars demain} ou encore {départ demain}. Dans ce cas la périphrase <to be V#ing> relève vraiment de la modalité exprimée par le locuteur au sujet d'une action future : ici la locution en "ing" ne véhicule pas la progressivité d'une action entreprise par le locuteur puisque celui-ci ne fait rien (il ne part pas), mais se contente de dire ce qu'il fera (il partira demain). PARISIEN : « Eng.: "he is sleeping" Ital.: "sta dormendo" Esp.: "esta dormiendo" — Very concise progressive forms for describing a stable situation. Well fitted for a factual assessment. Other languages have to use longer periphrastic forms involving an infinitive: Ger.: "er ist am Schlafen" Dutch.: "hij is aan het slapen" Sw..: "han håller på att sova" Fr.: "il est en train de dormir"». Je pense que toutes ces langues ont recours à la périphrase : An <is sleeping> est la 3e pers. sg. de la formule <to be sleep#ing>, où <sleep#ing> n'est pas conjugué : la conjugaison affecte <to be> pour délaisser le reste de la locution verbale. Pareil pour It <stare dorm#endo> & Es <estar durm¹#iendo> (¹radical spécifique). Ce qui différencie An <to be V#ing> d'une part, de It <stare V#(a)(e)ndo> & de Es <estar V#(a)(ie)ndo> d'autre part, ce n'est pas tant la construction périphrastique que l'utilisation en anglais d'un suffixe d'origine nominale pour marquer le verbe lexical non-conjugué. Rapprocher An <I am writing> de Al *<ich bin schreibung>. Guest : « The progressive tense isn't only used to refer to something which is happening right now, just to an action which is ongoing. You could say in English 'When Jane is speaking' and it wouldn't necessarily mean Jane is speaking right now. » Absolument ! La forme <to be V#ing> peut servir à des tas d'autres choses que l'expression d'une action continue. Exemple : la pub Magdo → An <I'm loving it> vs An <I love it> (verbe d'état). Mais ça marche aussi avec des verbes d'action : An <what are you drinking ?> peut se comprendre ainsi : {qu'est-ce que je vous sers/commande ? = que désirez-vous (boire) ?}, et non pas forcément comme {que buvez-vous là ? = qu'y a-t-il dans votre verre ?}.
<<mais plutôt une locution verbale composée de l'auxiliaire {être} suivie d'un verbe lexical suffixé à l'aide d'un suffixe d'origine nominale (rapprocher An <#ing> de Al <#ung>, aujourd'hui et en vieil-anglais) ;
>> & <<Rapprocher An <I am writing> de Al *<ich bin schreibung>. >> The English suffix "-ing" for the pregressive is not originated in a nominal suffix, but a verbal one. English "-ing" (present participle ending < alt. of ME -inde < OE -ende) is distinct from English "-ing" (gerund ending < ME -ing < OE -ing/-ung) Therefore, English "I am writing" should be compared with German "Ich bin schreibend" Only archaic/poetic forms using "a-" as in "I am a-writing" might be compared with "Ich bin [am] schreiben"/"Ich bin schreibung", but that beyonders what we're discussing here at the moment. In any event, "a-writing" cannot normally be used as a regular adjective (i.e. "The a-writing hand was unseen by most" :\?) Otherwise, the combination of 'be' + participle could be thought of as not being a disctinct verbal tense form (like those using -ed), even though the participle itself is...
Uuff...boooring, what was the first question?
Maybe somebody forgot it! Swedish is better, Dutch is spoken by more people but they don't hire you because you can speak it, while they can hire people speaking one scandinavian language to interact with the other nordic countries as well. |