Arath

Welcome!

Hello, Arath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

BG Language, grammar

Hello !

I undid a couple of your revisions for the following reasons -

• re-added "in Bulgarian, headlines are not written in the inferrential" (which i agree with you, the original sentence i had written - "articles are not written in the inferrential" - was wrong), and
• returned numeric plural to the "genitive case remnants" section - since, again, you may be right, but find a source suggesting this is the case. You are probably right insofar as the dual was lost in Slavic LONG before the genitive case was so, like in many other aspects of grammar, here the genitive took over the functions of the dual in the case of the numeric (this is similar in Russian also - altho not in Polish, where a form that may well stem from the dual is still kept in the lower numbers: 1 zloty /2-4 zlote / 5+ zlotych).

Now, in both these cases, and for the future, i'd like to ask something of you (i'm being friendly, despite the strict-sounding tone, so please don't take offence :-) - it's better to add extra info/footnotes, rather than to completely remove data, since this hinders articles - eg. in the first case, yes, i made a mistake by saying "news articles never use the renarrative" - but erasing the whole sentence hinders the article; if you'd considered the fact that headlines are always "huligani vandaliziraha spirka" (hooligans vandalized bus-stop), etc, you could have just added this info to the footnote, and it could have been ok.

In the second instance, again, you could add a footnote saying that "the genitive in the numerical plural originally stemmed from the dual", or something along those lines but, again, to completely remove the section is just destructive and helps no one (about this, consider the fact that all numeric plural/incomplete definite article constructions are identical to each other - dva stola/pod stola; tri konya/na konya, etc - it would be quite a co-incidence if the dual accidentally became identical to the genitive, wouldn't it?).

So, by all means, add this info that i've suggested, or something more useful still, but please don't remove info from articles without considering how you can improve them by adding or amending stuff first (you can reply to me here if you want). Thanx, Nic 62.176.111.68 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it is used in headlines whenever the grammar requires it to be used, at least in Bulgaria: [1], [2]. Of course it could be debated whether this is inferential or admirative, because in most headlines it's used to convey sensation or unexpectedness of the news, newspapers are well-known for that.

In the Bulgarian article about the count form there are a lot of sources suggesting that it originated from the dual number. And not "all numeric plural/incomplete definite article constructions are identical to each other", consider "света (sveta) /светът (svetat) /два свята (dva svyata)", "града (gradá)/два града (dva gráda)" (different stress), see also the Western Bulgarian dialects "свето(т) (sveto(t))/два света (dva sveta)", столо(т) (stolo(t))/два стола (dva stola). The dual form and the definite article have completely different origins. Arath (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you have a good point - but before removing it again (which you probably have, i've not checked) - let's find evidence that it is, in fact, the dual, because it is a fact that the dual disappeared LONG before the genitive (and the construction does have the genitive ending "-a", which prevails despite the shift in stress, etc in "na svetà/2 svyàta"; furthermore, there is no arguing that it is not a pure dual, since it applies to all numbers - tho don't get me wrong, i agree with you that it may well originally have come from there)... 62.176.111.68 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, for the first point - again, you are right (pretty good work on finding the articles - i'm impressed! I searched through a whole newspaper the other day and couldn't find a single one!) - but you have to admit, it is very rare, and in any case in the first one of your examples, it is talking about an inferred future tense - something that might happen, as opposed to something that did (and in the second case, the renarrative headline perhaps stems from the fact that a witness was the first person to report it, before the official police statement came - although i am not agruing with you that it is a valid example). 62.176.111.68 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what i'll do (because it seems to me we're both agreeing at least up to a point with each others' statements) - i'll add a footnote to the genitive citing your stance with a {citation needed} tag (which i'll myself also work on digging up, as i hadn't seriously considered the whole dual thing until you mentioned it - nice one), and i'll replace "never" with "rarely" on the renarrative comment. Let's continue to talk on this page for any further developments. Yours, N. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. if we find good evidence for the dual, we could even add it under Slavic Languages here.

pps...damn, you know how it is when you know you've been proved wrong? I've had time to walk aroud and consider your points, read your links, etc, and i can't argue on the genitive thing. However...(and i want to discuss this, properly, i'm not arguing here)... why are the two identical (aside, of course, from the less common examples you gave)? I mean, as i said above, i do agree with the original dual theory, but it - linguistically seems obvious to me that at some point the genitive must have taken over?... can it really be a coincidence that the two merged so almost completely? After all, see all the other slavic languages that do use the genitive for counting (slovenian, russian, to cite but two)...Looking at the grammar, it even seems likely that the dual was lost because it became almost indistinguishable from the ganitive?

although it is true that it is the singular genitive which ends in "-a", while the plural genitive ends in "-ov" in several languages (Slovene, Russian - tho not Serbian, which is closest to us, and keeps the "-a" in sing and plur)... could it perhaps be that the ordinary plural in single-syllable words such as stol/most -> stolove/mostove, etc which stems from the genitive?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. N 62.176.111.68 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late response but I've been busy. About the count form. As I've already said, in the Bulgarian article about the count form there are sources which very clearly say that it's derived from the dual number. I don't have all the books myself but I've got "Граматика на съвременния български книжовен език, БАН, С. 1983" and "Граматика за всички, Боримир Кръсев". In these two books it's written only that it originated from the dual number. They don't say anything about a genitive case or that it took over the dual number. It may be true, but we don't have any sources. But even if it is true, still the count form first originated from the dual number, even if was considered a genitive form for some time in the past. So the origin of the count form is the dual number.

If you want examples of case remnants so badly, consider the expression "своего рода" (peculiar, particular, sui generis). It's a perfect example of the genitive case.

There are some examples of the dative:

• "Слава Богу" ("Слава на Бога");
• "по моему, по твоему, по нашему, по своему" (in my/your/our/one's own way);

The dative was sporadically used in old literature:

• Ivan Vazov (Една Българка): "...Тя си мислеше: "Да направя това добро... Клетнику! Какъв беше!..." (Да направи това добро на клетника);

• Ivan Vazov (Под игото, глава XI Радини вълнения): "...Ради стана по-леко, по-ясно на душата и тя хвърли по-смел поглед около си и отпреде... (На Рада стана по-леко...);

or in folk songs:

• Милен Милени думаше (Милен на Милена думаше);
• Мама Стояну думаше (Мама на Стоян думаше);
• Стоян, женен за самодива "Стояну госте додоха..." (На Стоян гости дойдоха);

or in sayings:

• Гарван гарвану око не вади (Гарван на гарвана око не вади);

Examples of the accusative:

• За Бога!. Consider that this is not the definite article, because in the Western dialects (including the Macedonian literary norm) the article is /o(t)/, so this would be "За Бого(т)", but it's not, it's still "За Бога";

Until 1945, or around that year, the so-called "agglomerative" accusative form of masculine nouns was obligatory. This form is an accusative case used instead of any other case except nominative and vocative. It was used regularly in old literature.

• Ivan Vazov, "Под игото" - Рада, която от няколко време се луташе из камънаците да дири Бойча, сега го видя. (да дири него) vs 'Бойчо се ослуша и каза:... (Той се ослуша);
• Ivan Vazov, "Чичовци" - "И аз сущото рекох на Варлаама..." (на него) vs "Варлаам изгледа намръщено Хаджи Смиона" (Той изгледа него);

It is used also in sayings:

• Брат брата не храни, ала тежко му, който го няма (Той него не храни). Consider the Macedonian: Брат брата не рани, тешко кој го нема, it's not "братот";

Even examples of the instrumental can be found in old literature:

• Pencho P. Slaveykov, "Ралица" - "Пусни!... Сърцето силом се не зема." (със сила не се взема);

or in the preposition посредством.

A lot of case remnants are used as adverbs, and that's already been written in the article, кой/кого/кому are explained in the pronouns article, the vocative in the nouns article, so some of the information you've given about case remnants has already been explained elsewhere.

The form with the short definite article and the count form are almost always identical due to orthographic reforms and vowel reduction, but they have completely different origins. In Old Bulgarian the word for town was градъ and the definite pronoun тъ (that) was put behind the noun градъ тъ (that town). But over time this was reanalyzed as a definite article and become градътъ (the town). This word, and many more (деньтъ - денят), were written this way until the orthographic reform of 1945. Consider that the "ъ" of the modern definite article "ът" is actually not part of the article but part of the noun. That was the reason why the final yers ("Ъ" and "ь") were written until 1945, because people believed that they were pronounced when the noun was used with the definite article ("градъ" pronounced "grad", but "градътъ" pronounced "gradɣt").

The short form of the article is actually the long form without the "t", that's why we pronounce "в града" as "в градЪ", not "в градА". Even before the reform the short article was written with an "a" to distinguish it from the indefinite form (градъ, града, градътъ). After the reform, when the final yers were removed, many people thought that if we wrote градъ for the short article form, many people would confuse it with the old indefinite form and would read it just as "град", without pronouncing the final "ъ", as this was the rule before 1945. Ever since Old Bulgarian the count form has been written with an "а", that explains why the two forms are almost always orthographically the same. Vowel reduction explains why we pronounce them the same way. We pronounce unstressed "a" as "ъ", that's why we say "под стола" and "два стола" in the same way. If there were no vowel reduction in Bulgarian, we would pronounce "под стола" with an "ъ" and "два стола" with an "а". In the Western dialects the two forms are different because "Ъ" gave "O" and the count form remained with and "A", although in Macedonian it is used only after the number two, so Macedonians say "под столот" and "два стола".

About the inferential mood, I believe what you wanted to say was that although the news readers did not witness the event themselves they very often use the indicative mood to talk about it. But they use the inferential mood, as well. They sort of mix up the too moods, and don't seem to follow any strict rule, although, and I stress that this is my personal observation, they tend to use the indicative mood when the event was witness by a reporter, it may not be a reporter from the same television, it could be a reporter from any news agency. And they tend to use the inferential mood when they report the words of other witnesses, such as citizens, passers-by or victims, but there are many exceptions. I don't think there is a difference between the title and the news article itself, there can be found many titles in the indicative mood and many in the inferential, the same goes for the articles.

About the admirative mood, as I said before, it is not used rarely, it is used whenever the grammar requires it to be used and newspapers are good examples for that. We use the admirative mood to express surprise, unexpectedness, etc. and so newspapers use it for sensational news. Consider the headline "Сатиншев носел очила, за да изглежда по-умен." (Stanishev wears glasses to look smarter.), it was in a newspaper a few months ago. Here the admirative form "носел" is used, because the information is contrary to one's expectations. One would expect him to wear glasses because he can't see well, not because he wants to look smarter.

I think the link I gave with "щял" is not a very good example of the admirative mood, because it really expresses an action that might happen, so it's a bit more of a dubitative or renarrative form. Such forms are also very common in the press. The facts are expressed with the indicative mood and the unconfirmed information or the personal opinions are expressed with the dubitative or renarrative. Look at the this article, more specifically the phrase "Това според него щяло да върне доверието на хората към политиците." Here the renarrative verb form "щяло да върне" is used, because the media should be objective (should have no opinion) and that's not a confirmed fact, it may be true, it may be not, it's what Parvanov thinks, that's his opinion.

You can read a lot about these moods here and here.

Wow! - detailed response, thanks! I didn't know about the reasons for their having chosen the A spelling over the Ъ for the incomplete definite, that's interesting (i only that they're "written A but pronounced Ъ" but never knew the etymology). The examples of cases you give are also very useful - would love to put them in to the article but i feel it would really clutter it up (unless you want to choose a couple of the more concise ones and add them in as footnotes? - but unrfortunately i think most of them are so good because they are archaic/dialectal usage?)

On the renarrative - again, i agree that when the grammar requires it it is used (such as stanishev's glasses - that's a classic!) - all i am saying is that, in headlines, it is used more rarely than one would expect in cases of reports on past events - again, the example of "vandali potroshiha spirka" (headline), but then the main text is in the renarrative as one would expect ("kum 1 chasa vandali potroshili spirka v zh.k. mladost", etc), that's all i meant - i suppose it's because the simple past tense is more eye-catching and draws more attention to the headline to make the reader read the article (?). Anyway, glad to've got is sorted. What i'll do now (unless you get in ahead of me!) is move my comments on the numerical plural to a newly-created subsection of Bulgarian grammar#Nouns called "Remnants of the Dual".

ps. excellent work on the BG Pronouns article, very clear and concise.

Stay safe! 62.176.111.68 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

pps. What's your opinion all the moods in Grammatical mood being moved out of the article and into the secondary articles realis mood and irrealis mood? (and many seem to have been erased, tho maybe that's just cause the info was beig repeated?)... 62.176.111.68 (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a bad idea, because now the article is unevenly divided, and Adamirative and Renarrative are used to express real actions, actions that really happened/are happening, so they shouldn't be in Irrealis mood. Arath (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. i contacted the user FilipS, who was the one who moved it all around, on the matter, but he doues not seem to have logged on since. I hope he considers this fact and re-instates the old form of the article - i believe that the realis/irrealis articles should not deal with the moods themselves, but rather deal with the idea of Realis/Irreaslis and compare and analyze them (and perhaps the two articles should therefore become be a single article called "Realis and Irrealis Moods"???),. (Also maybe it would be best if the Grammatical Mood article also simply had a list of the moods with 1/2-sentence explanations for each, and each mood be moved to its own article (and therefore a new article to be created for Renarrative Mood - it's become quite long)?). What do you think? Nic 62.176.111.68 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New Stuff

Ok, that's cool. (i missed it and left the repetitive info further below) But i reckon we could leave some of the info i wrote. for example the -L and -R is true for most traditional words for men (ok, not "almost invariably" but certainly saying "mostly" would be correct - especially for professions ending in consonants - uchitel, gospodar, etc. - we could add it as a note in some other part of the article, if not in this "numerical plural" section).

what i meant by "dva(ma) fotografa" is that, while incorrect, you do get it in the spoken language (eg. if it's a man and a woman, it just sounds weird to say "dvama"!). but i'll leave it up to you, if you think it hinders it, then ok, remove it.

for the pronouns, i think we could leave it under Bulgarian Language for the simple reason that it does not simply explain a bunch of rules (which would be appropriate for the Pronouns article), but rather my stuff discusses the malleability of the usage of the language, and is therefore an interesting analysis of this (of course, we could then discuss it further in the Pronouns article, from a more gramatically-orientated point of view).. Waiting on your opin on this. oh, andyou're right about ednakuv - i'll correct it to "adjective". 62.176.111.68 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulgarian adjectives

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bulgarian adjectives, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tiho.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Tiho.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)