Pica jest obiczno delana posredstvom polozzenie sir, kolbasa, ljuta salama, maslini, zelenina (na primer pomidori ili cibuli) i pripravi na hleb pokrivani od sous. Sous jest najvisze czasto pomidorni, ale nekogda maslni sous jest upotrebeni. Jesut rozne stili od pica v rozne czasti od svet, vkljuczaczo pica iz Nju Jork, kotora ima ploski hleb dlja pica, i pica iz Czikago.
What is connection of the words polozzenie and sir? Shouldn't be od there?
If you use conjugation, use all the adventage of it. I would write the first sentence this way:
Obiczno delajut Pica polazzivszo na pokriti s sous hleb sir, kolbasa, ljuta salama, maslini, zelenina (na primer pomidori ili cibuli) i pripravi.
DC-on:
Obično picu delajut položivšo na pokriti sousem hleb sir, kolbasu, ljutu salamu, maslini, zelenina (na primer pomidori ili cibuli) i pripravi. Najčasto koristajut pomidorni (ale nekogda maslini) sous. V roznih častah sveta jesut rozne stili pici, vključačo New Yorksku picu (kotora ima ploski hleb), i Chicagsku picu.
What is connection of the words polozzenie and sir? Shouldn't be od there?
Logically it should, but because the preposition od has got two meanings, it could cause a confusion.
polozzenie sir = putting (of) cheese polozzenie od sir = putting by cheese
Here the difference isn't so visible, because the sir is inanimate, so it can hardly actively perform any action, but look for example at:
ubitie od muzz = killing by a man (i.e. the man kills somebody else) ubitie muzz = killing (of) a man (i.e. the man is killed)
---
The absence of subjects in your versions is quite disturbing. The conjugation doesn't imply that pronominal subjects can be left out; they should be kept, because the used conjugation endings are not equally obvious to all Slavs.
---
pokriti sousem hleb
To me, sousem pokriti hleb would sound more natural. But I don't know what is more common in Slavic languages.
ubitie od muzz = killing by a man (i.e. the man kills somebody else)
ubitie muzz = killing (of) a man (i.e. the man is killed)
TY SI NEMOZES PLIEST 2. PAD SO 7. PADOM.
"ubitie od muzx" predstavuje napr. ako sme sa dohodli genitiv, t.j.
"killing of a man"
NAPROTI TOMU, "ubitie muzz" OR "muzx" by mohlo predstavovat instrumental t.j.
7.pad. Slovano to ma presne definovane a nemoze tam vzniknut vobec zamena, alebo nejaky nezmysel, alebo nieco nepochopitelne :
"UBITIE OD MUZ'" je zabitie muza. [killing of a man]
"UBITIE S MUZ'" je zabitie muzom. [killing by a man]
V TOMTO PRIPADE PREDLOZKA "OD" PREDSTAVUJE VYJADRENIE GENITIVU A
PREDLOZKA "S" PREDSTAVUJE VYJADRENIE INSTRUMENTALU, CIZE 7. PADU.
[na rozdiel od predlozky "so", ktora predstavuje spolu s niecim, napr.
"JA IDET TAM SO OTEC" - I am going there with father.
Pizza* es obicxuo delalju posred polozxenie siruf, sosiskaf, pepperonif*, olivafs, zemplodifs (na primer tomatifs ili ciblukufs) i pikantifs na hlebuf pokrilju ot sous. Sous es naicxastuo tomatju, no negda masloju sous es upotrebilju. Es razlicxju stilis pizzaf* vo razlicxju cxastis vsetuf, vklucxits pizza* iz New York*, ktor imajt ploskju hleb dla pizza*, i pizza* iz Chicago*.
The asterixed words show how I guess that Slovio-ists would (often wrongly) render these foreign words; Slovio-ists' opinions don't have to agree with my ones.
Pizza is usually made by means of putting cheese, sausages, pepperoni, olives, vegetables (for example tomatoes or onions) and spice onto bread covered with sauce. The sauce is most often a tomato one, but sometimes a butter sauce is used. There are different styles of pizza in different parts of the world, including the pizza from New York, which has got flat bread for pizza, and pizza from Chicago.
Huh... Do you Czechs use third person plural verbs in case of "absent subject"?
Not very often, your second version with se is more common. Anyway, I think that the classical passive voice is the best, it is always clear to all Slavs.
By the way, why did you use the word polazzivszo? I would use posredstvom polozzenie in a D-off language, and polozzeniem in a D-on langauge.
Because polazzivszo requires accusative. It doesn't need a preposition neither "logically" nor practically. (Your idea about using / not using of od doesn't look so bad, but still it's better to avoid such situations.)
The passive constructions with se are the most common in Russian. Also, we pretty often use expressions like "Etu knigu často pokupajut". But we hardly use "to be + past ptc." contruction, especially in present tense. It looks to me like a literally translation from English.
Because polazzivszo requires accusative. It doesn't need a preposition neither "logically" nor practically. (Your idea about using / not using of od doesn't look so bad, but still it's better to avoid such situations.)
Good idea! Not very familiar at the first sight, but reasonable.
The passive constructions with se are the most common in Russian. Also, we pretty often use expressions like "Etu knigu často pokupajut". But we hardly use "to be + past ptc." contruction, especially in present tense. It looks to me like a literally translation from English.
Ah, I see ... So we should probably define this:
- The subject should be always given, even a pronominal one.
- If there is a third person plural present tense verb (-jut) without the appropriate subject (oni), it is a passive construction.
I have got a problem with the se-construction ... how to form it from verbs that already have one se?
The subject should be always given, even a pronominal one.
No... If you'll use a pronoun you would totally eliminate "personallessness" of the sentence (at least in Russian). The obligatory using of pronouns is typical for Germanic languages only.
I have got a problem with the se-construction ... how to form it from verbs that already have one se?
The "se-construction" you mentioned is used to represent passive voice. In Russian we have three kinds of verbs: transitive, intransitive and reflexive (the ones that have se in their neutral form). Of course, only transitive verbs (i.e. the ones that don't have se) can have passive voice form. So, I don't see any problem. Or you have a "counter-example"?
Yeah, I was a little mistaken in my explaining of my motivation of why I preferred dela se to je delana. Sure, je delana sounds very unnatural (or rather too English) to me, but it isn't the matter. I chose this form for the same reason as for polozzivszo: the passive form je delana would require some unnaturally sounding preposition, whereas dela se can be "explained" with more-or-less familiar adverb (polozzivszo). Don't forget that theoretically we always can avoid "real" passive voice — especially in Slavic languages.
No... If you'll use a pronoun you would totally eliminate "personallessness" of the sentence (at least in Russian). The obligatory using of pronouns is typical for Germanic languages only.
Bot not all verb endings are equally obvious to all Slavic speakers:
a Russian will instantly recognise -ju and -jut, but not -0 and -mo
a Pole or a Czech will instantly recognise -ju and -0, but not -mo and -jut
a Slovak will instantly recognise -0, but not -ju, -mo and -jut
a "Serbo-Croat" or a Slovene will instantly recognise -0 and -mo, but not -ju and -jut
a Bulgarian or a Macedonian will instantly recognise -0, -mo and -jut, but not -ju
only the -sz and -te endings are really pan-Slavic
only the Ukrainians happen to recognise all the endings used in Slovianski-P
So to give the subject always is a must, if we don't want to sacrify the understandability.
again, it should be zdelana
you can't make an imperfective verb passive, you have to use the reflexive if you want that, but here the passive participle is more correct because the aspect is perfective in the meaning of the sentence
Let's have mit "to wash" (transitive). From this, we'll naturally derive mit se "to wash oneself" (reflexive). How to interpret the following sentence, then?
Oni mijut se.
Does it mean "they wash themselves" (i.e. the reflexive verb mit se was used) or "they are washed" (i.e. the verb mit was turned into passive by means of adding se)?
Gabriel:
Oni mijut se.
Does it mean "they wash themselves" (i.e. the reflexive verb mit se was used) or "they are washed" (i.e. the verb mit was turned into passive by means of adding se)?
===
I think you have a problem with your own grammar:
oni mijut means "they they-wash" and not "they wash"
Gabriel:
This is the principle of conjugation: the subject is expressed twice so that you could overhear nothing.
===
Either you are joking or you do not know!
=================================================
Let's have mit "to wash" (transitive). From this, we'll naturally derive mit se "to wash oneself" (reflexive). How to interpret the following sentence, then?
Oni mijut se.
Does it mean "they wash themselves" (i.e. the reflexive verb mit se was used) or "they are washed" (i.e. the verb mit was turned into passive by means of adding se)?
=================================================
"oni mijut se" means 'they are washing themselves'
to say 'they are washed' you should say "oni je pomiti" for the perfective sense
Ah, damned English! So again and hopefully correctly:
Let's have mit "to wash" (transitive). From this, we'll naturally derive mit se "to wash oneself" (reflexive). How to interpret the following sentence, then?
Oni mijut se.
Does it mean "they wash themselves" (i.e. the reflexive verb mit se was used) or "they are being washed" (i.e. the verb mit was turned into passive by means of adding se)?
In Russian it can have both passive and reflexive senses. In fact it's difficult for me to distinguish them. I think it's taken for passive when the agent is mentioned, and reflexive otherwise.
Yeah, I was thinking about the ending for present verbs of 1st person Sg... I think it should be -m. Because it's much less disguiding to take "I" for "we", than "I" for "they".
In Czech it has got exclusively the reflexive meaning. That's why I don't like the se-construction - it isn't universal.
As far as -ju/-m is concerned, it is really difficult ... Yes, -m is less confusing, but in both written and spoken language. On the contrary, -ju is more confusing, but in the written language only.
