subordinate clauses

anonymous asked:

So you got plagiarized! ! BOOHOO!! What's the big deal!! It's not like you poured yourself whole heartedly, wove your soul in your work, shed blood sweat and tears to make magic happen. It's just stuff. So people will send you hearts and hugs and smiles. Be happy , be greatful. You don't need to be outraged. That's wrong. It serves you right you got your work, ur style, ur similiea, metaphors stolen. Why did u share ur work without copy right in public? It's public property now.

Yo, I know you’re dicking around with me, because your sarcasm subverts the shit out of your comment rendering it ingenious in a way. But lemme tell you, I wrote that post when my ass was super sad. Super damn sad. I haven’t been that sad for the longest time when it comes to something unrelated to family/real life personal.

Now my ass is salty as fuck.

BOO-freaking-HOO, right? It’s not a big deal, YEAH? Man, I am so rarely angry here on Tumblr unless I’ve come online and seen some anon bullshit happening, so let me make it crystal clear for you:

Don’t plagiarise.

Don’t plagiarise.

Don’t fucking plagiarise. 

Don’t appropriate dishonestly. Credit when you are inspired by someone. Acknowledge your plot bunnies and specific writing styles if they’re lifted directly from someone else’s fic. Just fucking do it. Otherwise spend just as long as we all do labouring and pouring our hearts and souls into these creations, and come up with your own material. 

It’s that simple.  

I know my fics inside and out. Like the back of my hand. I can recite entire one shots to you off by heart because these fics are manifestations of my blood, sweat and tears. They contain everything I’ve managed to squeeze out of my body and brain. I spend literally all night, not sleeping until early hours in the morning, because I care that much about where I place my verbs and prepositions, and which sentences should be complex with subordinate clauses, and when I need to pull in for tension or pull out for exposition. I know my own writing so well it makes it that much easier to identify the many permutations I see of it when it starts cropping up in other works. 

Don’t be outraged, you say? I am livid. And sad as fuck. To the point that it’s not even about the actual theft anymore, but the fact that I’m now scared this has permanently soured my experience of a fandom I think is cool as hell.

So I’m taking the time to calm my ass down. So I don’t dig an even bigger hole and fill it with words I might regret later. So I can come back and at least express gratitude for the “hearts, hugs, and smiles” people have kindly shared, and figure this shit out.

As of right now though, I’m done.

Have a motherfucking great day, anon. Kiss my salty ass on the way out. 

And for god’s sake: don’t fucking plagiarise.

It really is that simple.

Matrix Clauses

The intro class I TA has now moved on to syntax. Last week I was explaining about the difference between main or matrix clauses and subordinate clauses. For example, in the following sentence:

Neo wondered if he should take the red pill. 

The subordinate clause is “if he should take the red pill”, while the matrix clause is “Neo wondered…”

And then I said something without really thinking about it, but it’s totally true:

“The matrix clause is the clause that all the other clauses plug into.”

anonymous asked:

hi can u make a post about the sentence structure of subordinate clauses unless u've done that already

Sure thing! c:


Subordinate Clauses in Norwegian

#1. What is a subordinate clause?

A subordinate clause can sometimes be called a dependent clause - simply because they’re not independent sentences. While a main clause makes perfect sense by itself, a subordinate clause is merely a phrase that gives the main clause extra information - and, consequently, it can’t be used as an independent sentence. 

This would be a main clause - a sentence that makes sense by itself:

“He needs to eat.”

This, on the other hand, would be a subordinate clause - a phrase that makes little sense when it’s by itself:

“Because he’s still growing.”

(It doesn’t really make sense by itself, right? Sure, if someone asked you “Why does he need to eat”, then this could be an adequate answer - but the phrase alone doesn’t carry much of a meaning - and unless you’re answering a question, you wouldn’t really say this phrase by itself.)

So, subordinate clauses are phrases that you add to your main clause to give people that tiny bit of additional information, like this:

“He needs to eat, because he’s still growing.”
(Main clause, subordinate clause.)

I know, it might seem like I’m spoon-feeding you this right now, but being able to tell a subordinate clause and the main clause apart is essential when you’re speaking Norwegian - as you’ll see in #4


#2 The sentence structure of a Norwegian subordinate clause

Here’s a post about the sentence structure of Norwegian main clauses.

Most of the time, the structure of a subordinate clause and a main clause will be the same - - - except for this:

- A subordinate clause usually starts with a subordinating conjunction (”because”, “when”, “that”)

- When negating subordinate clauses, “ikke” comes before the verb, not after. 


#3. Common subordinating conjunctions 

Some of the more common subordinating conjunctions (”subjunksjoner”) in Norwegian would be:

- som (”which/as/that” - as in “the guy that didn’t come….”)
- at (”that” - as in “he said that he couldn’t come…”)
- om (”if”)
- fordi (”because”)
- da (”when” - non-recurring)
- når (”when” - recurring)

*!! - When speaking, it’s sometimes common to omit the subordinating conjunction - because a native Norwegian speaker will automatically be able to tell which part is a subordinate clause - whiiiiich of course makes things a bit trickier for those of you who’re trying to learn Norwegian as a second (or third…or fourth..) language. (but hey, practice makes perfect amirITE–)

Here are some examples that might make things a bit easier to understand:

“Han sa at han kommer. - “He said that he’s coming.” 

“Jeg liker ikke hunder som bjeffer. - “I don’t like dogs that bark.”

“Han sa det da han gikk.- “He said so when he left.”

*!! - keep in mind that sentences starting with normal conjunctions such as “and” or “but” aren’t necessarily subordinate clauses, but two connected main clauses - so these rules won’t apply there.  


#4. Negation

Now this is where it really gets tricky. 

You see, a negated main clause in Norwegian will usually have the word “ikke” placed after the verb - however, if there’s a negated subordinate clause in a sentence, “ikke” will be placed before the verb. 

In other words:

“Jeg liker ikke hunder som bjeffer.” - “I don’t like dogs that bark.
(Negated main clause, subordinate clause = “ikke” after “liker”.)

“Jeg liker hunder som ikke bjeffer.“I like dogs that don’t bark.”
(Main clause, negated subordinate clause = “ikke” before “bjeffer”.

Does that make sense? Here’s another example:

“Han er ikke på skolen fordi han er syk.” - “He’s not at school because he’s sick.”

- “Ikke” after “er” because it’s a negated main clause, but not a negated subordinate clause. 

“Han er på skolen fordi han ikke er syk.” - “He’s at school because he’s not sick.”

- “ikke” before “er” because it’s a negated subordinate clause, but not a negated main clause.


I really hope that makes sense!! ;;v;;

anonymous asked:

Hello again! I have difficulty unferstanding the use of "что́бы", I wonder if you could give me a hand with this problem. Your blog is helping me a lot with my studies! :)

It depends on the exact sentence & context, but in general, it is used as a conjunction.

Subordinating Conjunction

The general definition of the word is “so that” … “in order to”. You use it to answer the question of зачем? For what reason?

As a subordinating conjunction, it connects an independent clause & a dependent clause

There are two main ways for forming sentences with the чтобы conjunction:

Subordinating & main clause have different subjects: Use чтобы + past tense

Я мыла посуду, чтобы мама отдыхала. 
I washed the dishes so that mom would rest.
Я мыла … мама отдыхала = different subjects.  Answers for what purpose did I wash the dishes?

The reason the past tense is used is because the particle бы (found in чтобы)   indicates the conditional mood & as such uses the past tense. 

Subordinating & main clause have the same subject:  Use чтобы + infinitive

Я прочитал книгу, чтобы понять Толстого.
I read the book to understand Tolstoy.
Я прочитал …я понял = same subject. Answers for what purpose the book was read.

Wishes & Commands

Чтобы can also be used to express wishes & commands.

She wants you to call her.
Она хочет, чтобы вы ей позвонили.

Do you want me to leave?
Ты хочешь, чтобы я ушел?

I need you to go to the library
Мне нужно, чтобы ты сходил в библиотеку

Speak slower so that I can understand.
Говорите медленнее, чтобы я поняла.

Differences from что + other forms

The usage of что usually indicates a statement and is used as a coordinating conjunction to mean “that”.

Анна сказала, что Алексей приехал.
Anna said that Alex arrived.
(Indicative statement. Is a fact. Has happened.)

Анна сказала, чтобы Алексей приехал.
Anna told Alex to arrive.
(She wants him to come and has told him to. Will eventually occur.)

As you can see, while they look similar they mean two completely different things and needs context/ speaker’s intention to understand.

You can also see чтобы in these forms:

для того, чтобы: in order that; in order to

Нам нужно больше голосов для того, чтобы победить их. 
We are going to need more voices in order to beat them. 

с тем, чтобы: in order to

Необходимо увеличить объем гуманитарной помощи, с тем чтобы оказать поддержку пострадавшему населению. 
It is necessary to increase humanitarian aid in order to provide relief to the affected populations. 

без того, чтобы не: without

Я не могу смотреть на тебя без того, чтобы не думать о ней. 
I can’t look at you without thinking about her. 

не то чтобы: not that

То есть, не то чтобы я не хотелa.
I mean, not that I wouldn’t want to. 

Basically, you should have some knowledge on the conditional/subjunctive mood and when to use the бы particles to understand all the uses, but I hope this clears up something. There are more uses than this, but they’re quite specific. If anyone wants to add to this, please do :)

Ausklammerung "Exbraciation" [German Grammar]

So this is an interesting concept (where you place something in the ‘Nachfeld’) which I only really /fully/ learnt about recently and is about word order. First of all you need to understand that this concerns part of a sentence called the 'Nachfeld’ (Post-field) which is the bit after the 'sentence brackets’ which is /usually/ after a verb/verb prefix:

E.g. [ ] = Sentence brackets (Mittelfeld), < > = Nachfeld.
Sie [hat ein Buch erhalten], <das sie sofort las>.
[Gib ihm sofort das Geld zurück], <das du ihm gestohlen hast>!

Or with just one simple predicate it comes after the object normally:

Der Großvater [schenkt seinem Enkel ein Buch], <das rot war>.

Now in German there are rules as to what can be placed in the Nachfeld, and it is important you understand which because otherwise you’ll be like “whyyy?!”

Subordinate Clauses in Nachfeld

Subordinate Clauses often appear in the Nachfeld (like the first two examples of this post!), but can be in the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir sind nicht in den Wald gegangen, weil es so stark regnete. (Nach)
e.g. Wir sind, weil es so stark regnete, nicht in den Wald gegangen. (Mittel)

German prefers the Nachfeld because otherwise it’s less comprehensible with long sentences, e.g. Wir sind, weil ich, meine Tochter und ihre neue Freundin damals keine Lust hatten, nicht in den Wald gegangen.

Infinitive Clauses in Nachfeld

Infinitive Clauses usually appear here, but can be in the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Geht bitte nicht weg, ohne euch zu verabschieden! (Nach)
e.g. Geht bitte nicht ohne euch zu verabschieden weg! (Mittel)

Modern German prefers the Nachfeld because for the love of God look how more comprehensible the first one is.

Comparative Clauses with Als/Wie

Comparative Clauses with als/wie are often placed in the Nachfeld, and rarely the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir haben die Aufgabe anders gelöst als ihr. (Nach)
e.g. Wir haben die Aufgabe anders als ihr gelöst. (Mittel)

However if you’re using als not in a comparative way then you need to put it in Mittel… usually… since it’s a prepositional phrase, but see below for the section on that!

e.g. Wir haben ihn als aufrichtigen Menschen kennen gelernt. (Mittel, Nach impossible)

Prepositional Phrases

This is the thing that originally got me confused, but prepositional phrases can appear in the Nachfeld and usually do if they are complex - this is so a German doesn’t have to remember to keep the verb in their head and it makes it easier.

e.g. Die Aufgabe wurde diesmal gelöst durch eine zehnköpfige, aus Vertretern verschiedener deutscher Universitäten und technischer Hochschulen zusammengesetzte Expertengruppe. (Nach)

e.g. Die Aufgabe wurde diesmal durch eine zehnköpfige, aus Vertretern verschiedener deutscher Universitäten und technischer Hochschulen zusammengesetzte Expertengruppe gelöst. (Mittel)

This can only happen with prepositional phrases that are objects or adverbials in a sentence. You CANNOT do it with pronominal adverbs either (Niemand kann mir dabei helfen dabei).

Sometimes smaller, less complex ones will appear but this is usually for stylistic choice/emphasis:

e.g. Niemand kommt mehr zur Ruhe in dieser hektischen Zeit. (Nach)
e.g. Niemand kommt mehr in dieser hektischen Zeit zur Ruhe. (Mittel)


Long, complex appositions usually appear in the Nachfeld (for comprehensibility), but can appear in Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir wollten die Notre Dame du Haut besuchen, eine Wallfahrtskirche, die vom Architekten Le Corbusier in den Fünfzigerjahren oberhalb des Dorfes Ronchamps erbaut wurde. (Nach)
e.g. Wir wollten die Notre Dame du Haut, eine Wallfahrtskirche, die vom Architekten Le Corbusier in den Fünfzigerjahren oberhalb des Dorfes Ronchamps erbaut wurde, besuchen. (Mittel)

Sometimes smaller, less complex ones will appear but this is usually for stylistic choice/emphasis:

e.g. Er ist an Krebs gestorben, dieser heimtückischen Krankheit. (Nach)
e.g. Er ist an Krebs, dieser heimtückischen Krankheit, gestoben. (Mittel) 

Enjoy :-) The only really “difficult” one here is perhaps the Prepositional Phrase one as it took me like 1.5 years before I even encountered that example in writing lmao.

You should read about how to make a huvudsats (main clause) before proceeding with bisatser (subordinate clauses).

Konjunktioner (conjunctions) are words used to connect groups of words or even to connect satser.
Some common konjunktioner:
En - Sv
and - och
but - men
or - eller
because - för
because (more formal) - ty
therefore - därför
without/but - utan

You can use a konjunktion to connect a group of words.
En: She ate an apple, an orange, and a whole watermelon.
Sv: Hon åt ett äpple, en apelsin, och en hel vattenmelon.

You can also use a konjunktion to connect two or more huvudsatser.
En: She bought a lot of fruit and she ate them all on the same day.
Sv: Hon köpte mycket frukt och hon åt upp dem på samma dag.
Without the konjunktionoch”, these two huvudsatserna can stand alone.
En: She bought a lot of fruit. She ate them all on the same day.
Sv: Hon köpte mycket frukt. Hon åt upp dem på samma dag.

Subjunktioner are used at the beginning of a bisats (subordinate clause). You can do this with other words such as relativa pronomen (relative pronouns) and frågeord (question words). All of these could be called “bisatsinledare” (subordinate clause openers).

Some common bisatsinledare:
En - Sv
that - att
because - eftersom
because (should not use at the beginning of a sentence) - därför att
because - för att
like - som
if - om
then - sedan
before - innan
while - medan
when - när
although - trots att
even if - även om

A bisats cannot stand alone like a huvudsats can. Imagine that the bisatsinledare is glued to the front of the sats.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I’ll make the bed and I’ll wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda och jag ska diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I’ll make the bed, even if I wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda även om jag diskar.
The first sentence contains two huvudsatser connected by a konjunktion. The second sentence contains a huvudsats followed by a bisats.

Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I’ll make the bed but I won’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda men jag ska inte diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I’ll make the bed, even if I don’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda även om jag inte diskar.
In the first sentence, the satsadverbinte” comes after the first verb of the huvudsats (“ska”). But in the bisats, the satsadverb comes before the first verb of the sats. In a huvudsats, it would be “jag diskar inte”, but in a bisats it comes out as “jag inte diskar”. This change with the satsadverb only affects the bisats part of the sentence.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I won’t make the bed and I won’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska inte bädda och jag ska inte diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I won’t make the bed even if I don’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska inte bädda även om jag inte diskar.

Remember that a bisatsinledare is glued to the front of a bisats, so if you were to switch the sats around, the bisatsinledare would be at the front of the entire sentence.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I won’t wash the dishes but I’ll make the bed.
Sv: Jag ska inte diska men jag ska bädda.
Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: Even if I don’t wash the dishes, I’ll make the bed.
Sv: Även om jag inte diskar ska jag bädda.
Also notice how the word order of the huvudsats in the second sentence changed. Imagine that the entire bisats is the fundament of the sats. “Verb 1” always comes after the fundament.

To recap, if you memorize which words are bisatsinledare and remember these three points, you should have no problem adding bisatser to your sentences.
1. One bisats cannot stand alone as a sentence.
2. In a bisats, the satsadverb comes before the first verb of the sats.
3. When a bisats is used in front of a huvudsats, it is the fundament.

Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: Although he fed the birds everyday, they never liked him.
Sv: Trots att han matade fåglarna varje dag tykte de aldrig om honom.
Bisats + Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: When he came near them, they flew away and they didn’t come back all day.
Sv: När han kom nära dem flög de iväg och de kom inte tillbaka på hela dagen.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: He would have been happy if only they had been his friends.
Sv: Han skulle ha varit lycklig om de bara hade blivit hans vänner.
Huvudsats + Bisats + Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: I don’t think that he should feed the birds pizza, like he’s been doing, but instead he should feed them birdseeds.
Sv: Jag tycker inte att han borde mata fåglarna med pizza, som han har gjort, utan han borde mata dem med fågelfrö. 


polaroidxirwin  asked:

hello! i just found this blog and it's so amazing to see all the questions people have because then i don't feel so alone! but i haven't seen this question yet so my question is: can you go over the basic sentence structures for things? because sometimes i'll think i have it correct and then suddenly the words are switched around but then when i try /that/ method again, it goes back to the way i had first? like if i put verb before subject, then it says subject before verb? do i make any sense?

Thank you so much, love!! <3 

I’ll try to cover the sentence structure in Norwegian main clauses (the post would probably get way too long if I tried to cover subordinate clauses as well, though I could do that in another post if you want! The main clause is definitely the most important/basic one though.)

( Also, do keep in mind that there are always exceptions in a language, so you might stumble across sentences that don’t follow these rules - though most sentences should. )


#1 - Essentials. 

Like English, Norwegian is a SVO-language (though it can also act as a VSO-language in certain sentences, but more about that in #5)

To make a sentence in Norwegian you must have:

1 - A verb
2 - A subject (you can omit the subject if you’re ordering someone to do something (e.g. “Run!” or “Come here!”), but to make an actual sentence, you would need both). 

This is enough to make very basic sentences, such as:

“Han går.” - “He walks.” / “He’s walking.”

“Jeg spiser.” - “I eat.” / “I’m eating.”

“Du ler.”“You laugh.” / “You’re laughing.”

*!!! - as you can probably see; in Norwegian there is no past progressive form, so sentences like “Han går” can be translated into both “He walks” and “He’s walking”. 


#2 - Verbs.

- Verbs must be the second element in a regular main clause

- Verbs must be the second element in a question if it’s not a yes/no-question 

- Verbs must be the first element in a question if it is a yes/no-question

*!!! - “element” is not the same as “word”. The subject could be “Mary and John”, but it’s still only one element. 


A regular main clause:

Jeg bor hjemme.” - “I live at home.”

“Han spiste fisk.” - “He ate fish.”

“De løp rundt.” “They ran around.”

A regular question:

Hvor bor du?”“Where do you live?”

“Hva spiser du?” - “What are you eating?”

“Hvem er det?” - “Who is that?”

A yes/no-question:

“Bor du her?” - “Do you live here?”

“Spiser du fisk?” - “Do you eat fish?”

“Er det deg?” - “Is that you?”


#3 - Subject.

- The subject is usually the first element

- If it’s not the first element, it will be the third element, directly after the verb (this can happen when an adverbial or object is the first element etc.) 

- If the sentence has more than one verb and the subject is not the first element, the subject will be in between the verbs. 


Subject as the first element:

“Jeg liker iskrem.” I like ice cream.”

“Jeg liker iskrem nå.” - “I like ice cream now.”

Subject as the third element: (usually you would make a sentence like this if you want to put more stress on the object or adverbial (time/place/etc.))

“Nå liker jeg iskrem.” “Now I like ice cream.” 

Two verbs + subject as the first element: 

Jeg kan spise iskrem nå.” - “I can eat ice cream now.”

Two verbs + subject as the third element (subject between the verbs):

“Nå kan jeg spise iskrem.” - “Now I can eat ice cream.” 


#4 - Negation.

- In a main clause the negation “ikke” will usually come directly after the verb.

- If the sentence has more than one verb, the negation will split the two.

- The subject can sometimes split the verb and “ikke” if it’s the third element of the main clause instead of the first


“Jeg liker ikke brød.” “I don’t like bread.”

“Han snakker ikke mye.” - “He doesn’t talk much.”

Two verbs:

Han kan ikke lese.” - “He can’t read.”

“Jeg liker ikke å skrive.”“I don’t like to write.”

When the subject is the third element:

Nå lager han ikke mat.”“He’s not making food now.” 

“Denne boken liker jeg ikke.” - “I don’t like this book.”

*!!! - be aware that the negation “ikke” comes before the verb if it’s a subordinate clause and not a main clause


#5 - Adverbial. 

- Usually either the first or the very last element in a normal sentence.


“Nå leser han.” - “Now he’s reading.”

“Han leser nå.” “He’s reading now.

*!!! - when an adverbial is the first element, the sentence can turn into an VSO-sentence instead of an SVO-sentence.


Like previously mentioned, there are always a lot of exceptions in a language, but this should at least be enough to make and understand basic sentences! c:


I’ll just list ways you can accomplish this [radical revision] when you are working on a poem. Dig up some old ones and see what happens (it’s best to use old ones to start, as you are no longer emotionally attached to them):

1) If someone tells you you have too much in your poem, add more.

2) If someone tells you you have too little in your poem, take out more.

3) Take the last line and make it the first. Rewrite from there, keeping whatever works in what’s already there.

4) Expand your poem: add subordinate clauses using who, when, until, if, while, before, after, as, since, whenever, where, etc.

Also use coordinating conjunctions: and/and/and; or/or/or; but/but/but (think of it as a list that keeps going).

So, for example: “The man, who once loved me, who once told me___________, and __________, and ____________, and ______________…” so you’re pushing the syntax and the comfort of the line/sentence.

Actual listing - must make a qualitative progression (light to dark, big to small, for example); can’t be random. Push the list, see what you come up with.

Repetition - repeat what you just said. Maybe repeat it again.

Contradiction - say the opposite of what you just said.

5) Compress your poem:

Negation: use the word ‘not.’ When you do this you get both the thing named and its absence. You can also use other words that negate - 'un’; 'never’; 'less’; 'without.’

Neologisms: (what I like to refer to as kennings - used in Anglo Saxon poetry): put words together to create a heightened adjective, a metaphor: 'the shutmouth mother,’ 'the sorrowfence.’

Possessives: use possessives: 'how the sun’s poultice draws on my inflammation’ (Plath) or 'the wind’s rebuke’ and 'the leaves’ exhalation’ (Brigit Pegeen Kelly).

Shift the parts of speech: Use a noun as a verb or vice versa. Use an adjective as a verb, etc.

Cut and paste: radically rearrange your poem. Find new combinations!


Go over your poem and underline any lines you feel jump out with lots of energy. Pick three of those lines. Make one the first line of a new poem, one a middle line, and one the last line. Now, using some of the above strategies (minimum 3), write a new poem.

—  Catherine Barnett, “Radical Revision”

So there’s this lovely rule in french that’s so obscure and so unnecessary I love it I got corrected on an essay once for using it because my teacher didn’t realize.

So there’s many past tenses. Imparfait “I was doing”, conditionnel passé “I would have done”, passé antérieur “I had done” and a bunch of others with names I forget “having done” “had been doing” “just did” “did but in a book” etc probably more idek

And ofc the passé composé “I have done / I did”

This only applies to the passé composé.

Also there are direct objects. You know like I read *the book*, I do *my homework* etc.

And sometimes there are pronouns for direct objects. Like “I read *it*” with it being the book.

This only applies when you use a pronoun, not just any direct object.

Only then does the past participle agree with the direct object in number and gender. Literally no other case. Sometimes if the verb is conjugated in the pc with être it agrees with the subject, but never the object (you could argue for reflexive verbs conjugated with être but like)

That’s not something you often have to remember considering you don’t refer to direct objects in the composed past more than once in a paragraph like *that often* so noone remembers the rule.

But every time it comes up everyone in the room groans. It’s like when the math prof brings up completing the square, it’s so simple, but everyone forgot it was a thing.

anonymous asked:

As a deaf person with limited/no context for how words sound, I'm finding the conlang community's fixation on starting with sound to be a huge stumbling block when trying to learn how to make conlangs that aren't signed. Do you have any advice on how to work around that?

Two three actually four things:

(1) “Phonology” doesn’t simply refer to sound. (I mean, etymologically it does, but not in linguistics.) Phonology refers to how a language uses unanalyzable, meaningless units (phonemes) to create larger chunks that do have meaning (words or affixes). In a spoken language, this refers to spoken phonemes (e.g. /p/, /b/, /d/, etc.). In a sign language, this refers to places on the body, motion, and handshape. If you know ASL, compare the sign for APPLE to the sign for ONION. These are almost exactly the same sign. You put your hand in the 1 handshape with the first two segments completed curled under, you put it up to your face and twist a couple times. The difference is whether you put your hand up next to your eye, or up at your cheek. That’s the only difference between those two words. Thus, the difference between APPLE and ONION in ASL is the same difference (quantitatively) as the difference between English “meet” and “mitt”. I share this example to show you how the principle behind the arrangement of both systems—signed and spoken—is the same. They differ in their expressions (i.e. through speech sounds and through movements done with the hands and body in particular places), but the notion is that there are certain things that have no meaning (for example the place next to the eye in ASL), but you can use those things in combination with other bits that have no meaning to form meaningful units.

There aren’t a lot of signed conlangs because many conlangers aren’t as familiar with sign languages as they are spoken, and also because they are very difficult to record on paper. Any hearing person who’s studied ASL will be familiar with this: You go to class and learn, but what do you write down? I imagine every learner kind of tries to invent their own notation system to help them remember, but ultimately you just have to memorize it. That doesn’t really work for someone creating the language, though. Video is the best way to capture a sign language, but it’s not super practical (though it’s getting easier). I tried to create a phonetic transcription system for sign languages called SLIPA. I’m not sure if anyone has used it, but I think the principle is sound (or sound enough). Plus, as with the relationship between narrow transcription and romanization, I think it makes sense for the creator of the language to create a more streamlined system for use with their language that can then be explicated in a page with SLIPA.

(2) There are still other conlang types that make no reference to sound but aren’t signed. I made one called X. It’s a purely visual language (think hieroglyphs but with no phonological component whatsoever). There’s a lot to be done in this area of conlanging. You can go the picture/glyph route I did, or you could just do something totally different, as with Sai and Alex’s UNLWS. You could also do something like this:

  • #$% = cat
  • #$%* = cats
  • ##$% = big cat
  • ##$%* = big cats
  • #$$% = small cat
  • #$$%* = small cats

After all, even letters are just symbols. They can stand for whatever you want, or nothing at all! As long as you can describe what’s going on, that’s all that’s necessary.

(3) To your main concern, saying “the conlang community’s fixation on starting with sound” is, to put it mildly, unfair. I start with the sound system in the spoken conlangs I do, and I mostly do spoken conlangs. If I’m writing a book on how to create a language, that’s where I start, because I’m writing it. But just because I do it that way doesn’t mean most do. Even if you go to a forum or mailing list and you see most people falling into that pattern, that doesn’t mean that’s representative of the community either, because there are any number of people who simply aren’t replying or aren’t volunteering their methods. We’ve had the discussion within the community time and time again about where one starts a conlang, and there’s a significant chunk that start with the syntax. They’ll use English words or just nonce forms to realize the grammatical idea they’re interested in, and only grudgingly turn to the phonology after they’re done. Some don’t even get that far, because their interest wanes when it comes to phonology. This split even exists in linguistics, where we refer to P people (phonetics/phonology) and S people (syntax/semantics). Ask any linguist: these camps don’t always understand one another. The same is true in conlanging. A P person sees an S person’s awesome subordinate clause marking system with a makeshift phonology and says, “Is that your phonology? It’s a little unrealistic.” An S person looks at a P person’s incredible naturalistic vowel harmony system and says, “Why waste your time on that if you’re not even going to speak it? It obscures the morphology. I can’t make heads or tails of it. Just show me the interlinear.” And these are all hearing conlangers! If you’re only finding conlangers who are talking about phonology, then you need to look for other conlangers—like the Jeff Jones and Gary Shannon type of conlangers. This was, admittedly, an easier task when the community was smaller—before social media, ironically. But I swear to you: There are TONS of conlangers who share your interests.

(4) There are also lots of spoken conlangs that don’t bother too much about phonology. There are minimalist conlangs which, by definition, don’t really have a lot of material to work with, so there’s not much to design/learn in the way of phonology (e.g. three vowels, seven or eight consonants, no consonant clusters). There are also a priori auxlangs or otherwise non-natural spoken languages where you don’t find assimilation or dissimilation, or anything like that. If there are five vowels and ten consonants with ©V© syllables, then there are 555 possible syllables (if I counted right), and every syllable is valid and pronounced exactly as it’s supposed to be, and can occur next to any other syllable. Then there are other conlangs with complex but non-natural phonologies, where there are many distinctions to be made (many of which wouldn’t exist in a natural language), and the speaker must make them. I’m thinking of Ithkuil. There, is admittedly, some small amount of variation is allowed, but otherwise the way that sounds are arranged is almost mathematical. There is no concern for how the sounds fit together, or whether two words sound too similar: The grammar says what sounds go where, and that is that. Any type of project like I’ve described above incorporates aural phonology but in a way that I think makes a little more sense to an S person.


If you have a particular project in mind but the approaches you’ve seen don’t match it, do a little digging and find a similar project, and see how they got going. If you have the start of something and want to know about a similar project, just send another ask, and I’ll see what I can find (most of the early conlangers have websites that are still up. Btw, newer conlangers: Even though no one does websites anymore, we need a way to see your work! Hunting through Tumblr posts/tweets/FB group posts doesn’t work!). But if I can add a tl;dr to this: THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO CONLANG! You’re good, I swear! And hey, if no one can approach the way you want, why not invent it yourself and detail it? You may be creating a method/approach that will be a great help to others down the line!

Public announcement!

Emil Nekola struggles with Czech grammar. He has no idea about commas in subordinate clauses, sometimes even the Is and Ys slip where they shouldn’t, and he forgot vyjmenovaná slova back in the 6th grade and never learnt them again (ok, maybe he can still put together the B ones and L ones).


Emil Nekola is the only person in the whole Czech Republic who can use přechodníky flawlessly. Pass it on.

Rhetorical Devices

I found my notes from AP English Language (actually one of my favorite classes ever) and thought some people might benefit from the definitions in there. A few are common knowledge and a few are probably things you’ve never heard of. Examples included! The ordering isn’t completely logical, but here you go.

Keep reading

latviskperson  asked:

God dag! I wanted to ask - how flexible is norwegian with word order? Like, is it always "drikker ikke"or is "ikke drikker" also a sensible form? I'm asking because my native language, latvian, is pretty flexible when it comes to this, and I can't seem to find any rules about word order in norwegian, so. Tusen takk!

Hei hei! I know that Norwegian word order is pretty rigid. I don’t feel qualified to go into a long explanation of the word order rules, because it would be quite an extensive post, and I would have absolutely no idea what I was talking about c: 

You ask whether “ikke drikker” can be used as a sensible form in addition to “drikker ikke”, and I can confirm that, yes, it is a sensible form. However, the sentence types where each variation occurs differ. 

In short, “drikker ikke” or VERB-ADVERBIAL is the most common order, because it is the order that occurs in complete, declarative sentences.

Example: Hun (S) drikker (V) ikke (A) melk (O). (She does not drink milk).

In subordinate clauses, however, the word order changes slightly, so that the verb is placed after the adverbial, and it becomes “ikke drikker”, i.e. ADVERBIAL-VERB.

Example: Når (Sub. conj.) hun (S) ikke (A) drikker (V) melk (O), … - (When she does not drink milk, …)

So, basically, the word order has to do with the sentence type, and changes depending on if the sentence is a complete sentence, a subordinate clause, and also on whether the sentence is declarative or interrogative. 

Here are some links about Norwegian word order (unfortunately they’re all in Norwegian):

Complete sentences
Complete sentences + interrogative sentences
Subordinate clauses
Interrogative sentences

I hope this answers your question! <3

Afrikaans word-order

Constructing a sentence in Afrikaans is relatively simply since one needn’t worry about cases, conjugations or even gender agreement. All that matters is syntax (or word order).

I’ve attempted to cover quite a lot in this post– briefly. Feel free to send an ask for a more detailed explanation of a specific aspect

► Normal sentences

► most importantly, Afrikaans is a V2 language, which means the verb is always the 2nd element in the sentence. Keep an eye out for this because it’s always true (in main clauses).

► All other elements are pretty flexible. The general word order rule is STOMPI which stands for: Subject – Time – Object – Manner – Place – Infinitives and participles (although sometimes the object can go after the adverb of manner). Together with the V2-rule, that gives you SvTOMPI — you needn’t follow it too rigidly, but it’s a good guideline.

For example, some basic sentences:

  • My naam is Sam  (My name is Sam)
  • Ek eet soggens ʼn appel  (I eat an apple in the mornings)
  • Ek wil môre biblioteek toe gaan  (I want to go to the library tomorrow)

Here is a longer sentence :

  • Ek skryf elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog  
    (I write an article quietly at work every day, to post on my blog)

for emphasis, you can start the sentence with almost any of the elements. But remember, no matter what you start with, the verb will be in the 2nd position and everything else follows the pattern :

  • Ek skryf elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog

Notice in the following sentences that the subject comes after the verb! This is different from English!

  • Elke dag, skryf ek ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog
  • Stilletjies skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel by die werk om te blog [*poetic]
  • By die werk skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies om te blog

Starting with the infinitive adds the nuance of : “In order to …”

  • Om te blog, skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk

And starting with the object only works in the passive voice:

  • ʼn Artikel word elke dag deur my stilletjies by die werk geskryf om te blog


Similarly, questions start with a question word, the verb follows in the 2nd position, and then STOMPI

  • Hoe gaan dit vandag met jou?  (How are you today?)
  • Waarvoor wil jy môre biblioteek toe gaan?
    (Why do you want to go to the library tomorrow?)

Other questions simply invert the subject and the verb. In these instances, the verb will be in the 1st position:

  • Gaan jy môre biblioteek toe? (Are you going to the library tomorrow?)

► Tense

the same rules apply to the past and future tenses. Just remember that participles go at the end with the infinitives.

  • Present: Ek skryf ʼn artikel by die werk (I write an article at work)
  • Past:  Ek het ʼn artikel by die werk geskryf
  • Future: Ek sal ʼn artikel by die werk skryf

You should also be aware of separable verbs. These are best left for a post specifically about verbs, but since it influences word order, this is how it works:

  • Present: Ek gooi die rommel weg  (I throw the rubbish/trash away)
  • Past:  Ek het die rommel weggegooi
  • Future: Ek sal die rommel weggooi

► Conjunctions

Above, were the word-order rules for a single sentence. Now, when joining two sentences together, they type of conjunction used will have an effect on the word order in the subordinate clauses (the second sentence)

  1. Ek gaan biblioteek toe   (I’m going to the library)
  2. My boek is reeds laat   (My book is already late)

► GROUP 1 consists of maar (but), en (and), of (or), want (because).
The word order of both clauses stays the same. For example:

► GROUP 2 consists of dan (then), daarna (thereafter), dus, daarom (therefore), toe (then), anders (otherwise), al (although).
Here the verb come directly after the conjunction :

► GROUP 3 consists of dat (that), omdat (because), totdat (until), nadat (after), sodat (so that), wat (who, what), alhoewel (although), toe (when), terwyl (while), sedert (since), as, of (if), tensy (unless).
After Group 3 conjunctions, the verb goes to the end of the 2nd clause:

First lines meme

Rules: List the first lines of your last 20 fics (or however many you have altogether) see if there are any patterns. Then, tag some of your fav authors.

Tagged by @lunariagold​, @darklittlestories​, and @raven-brings-light​ – thanks!! I’m excited and intrigued by the first lines of all of your WIPs :)

I definitely don’t have 20, but here are my 14 (padded with a little Tumblr ficlet) by genre. They seem to fall into 3 basic categories (with some subcategories, and some fall into more than one):

  1. A short “cold open” line of dialogue (1, 5, 8 Prologue) or thought (2), followed by a longer paragraph of explanation
  2. A prepositional phrase or subordinate clause establishing a temporal setting (4, 9, 10, 12, 14)
    1. Sometimes the temporal subordinate clause comes after a main clause describing an extended action, either habitual (3) or imperfect (11; arguably 6, 7)
  3. A description of the POV character’s feelings while doing something (6, 7)

Two openings are anomalous: the original version of “Abyss” (because it’s first-person narration) and “Silver and Gold” (a summary retrospective line). Both were among the earliest fics I posted.


1. Desert Flowers

“Loki, what are you doing in there? Dissecting a dead skunk?”

Thor’s voice drifted in through the open window, across the balcony that connected his room to Loki’s. Loki giggled (did that sound really just come out of his mouth?); it did smell a bit like a skunk.

2. The Tree of Knowledge

Loki kissed me. What in Hel was that about? was the first thought that entered Thor’s mind when he woke up. And I kissed him back.

As he rose, washed, and hurriedly dressed, Thor could think of nothing else. Loki kissed me. The words ran through his head over and over, like a ritual chant. And I kissed him back. What in Hel was that about?

3. The Paradox of Desire

As Loki had predicted, he and Thor could scarcely keep their hands off each other after that first time together. They were very discreet, of course—they had to be—but a keen-eyed observer who knew what to look for might have noticed some changes in their habits over the following few months.

4. “Rarely Looks Up, Rarely Loves

About an hour after he had retired to his chambers from dinner, a knock came at Loki’s door. “What do you want, Thor?” he called without moving from his bed.

5. Winter, Autumn, and Spring

“We have to stop doing this,” Loki said, quietly but firmly.

Surprised, Thor looked down to where his brother’s head was resting on his shoulder. Loki was not looking up at him; his face was still turned to the side, his cheek to Thor’s chest.

6. Fraternizing with the Enemy

Thor’s stomach was in knots as he made his way down to the dungeons.  He had not seen Loki in a year—more than a year, now. Not since he brought his brother back from Midgard, gagged and in chains. He is not my brother anymore, Thor told himself. He has shown that clearly enough.

7. Starting Over

Thor felt a deep unease as he strode up the long aisle of the throne room toward the golden dais from which the king held court. He had not thought to be here again so soon after he had told his father that he did not intend to take the throne after him. Odin had not reacted as badly as Thor had been expecting, but he had made clear enough that he was not happy about the news, and Thor still dreaded to face him again.


8. The Abyss Gazes Also
[[This one actually has two “first lines”: the original one, and the first line of the Prologue I added later. So here they both are: first the Prologue, and then the original, which has been incorporated at the end of the Prologue.]]

“Your Highness… do you remember me?”

Endre’s heart was hammering, and he was all but holding his breath, as Prince Loki slowly raised his eyes from the book in his hands and looked at him, his gaze cool and impassive.

“Should I?” he asked, his eyebrows slightly raised.

I imagine you’re wondering how I survived my fall into the Void to eventually arrive on Earth, looking like death warmed over (but a very stylishly attired death, I might add). It is a fairly interesting story, if not a pleasant one, so I’m perfectly willing to tell you. I do, after all, have rather a lot of time to kill.

9. The Noble Lie

When Odin emerged from the audience chamber into the small study behind it, trembling with grief and weariness and leaning on Gungnir as if it were more a staff than a spear, he was not surprised to find Frigga waiting for him just outside the door.

“You would not truly have killed him, had I not pleaded with you to be merciful,” Frigga said. There was uncertainty in her voice, and the beginnings of anger.

10. Not This Day

As soon as the Christmas decorations came down in the shops around New York, it seemed to Thor, the Valentine’s Day decorations went up.

11. Untitled Tumblr ficlet

Thor and Loki were ambling (in truth, half-stumbling) back to their bedchamber from a convivial evening of feasting and jesting with their friends when Loki turned toward Thor to make some playful remark. Before he could begin to speak, Thor caught him by the shoulder with an air of urgency.

“In this light I can really see it,” he said abruptly. “You have Mother’s eyes.”

12. The Third Time

After the battle, Thor found his brother sitting on the floor of the shattered throne room, his back against one of the few stretches of wall that remained upright, surrounded by the dead of both armies. Loki’s eyes were closed, his face ashen. Thor’s breath caught, and it felt like his heart had stopped for a moment. Please, don’t be dead. Not again.

Loki/Sif (sort of)

13. Silver and Gold

Sif had not always been in love with Thor. It was the younger brother who caught her eye first.

14. The Will to Power of the Weakest

After his first few days in prison, Loki did not pay attention to the nightly changing of the guard. It was of little consequence to him: the guard was not changed until two hours after a servant came down to the dungeons with his evening meal, which one of the guards on duty passed through the enchanted barrier into his cell; and after that, it was two more hours before the glaring white lights in the cells were turned off, leaving only the faint glow from the wall sconces in the hallway outside, so that Loki was forced to stop reading or writing and attempt (with varying degrees of success) to go to sleep.

Whew, that was time-consuming but fun! The people who tagged me have already covered most of the people I would have tagged, so I’ll just second the tags of @illwynd and @incredifishface, add @ghostxforest, and spread the joy to some people who aren’t so much in the fandom anymore but whose Thorki fic I still really like – @claricechiarasorcha, @karuvapatta

anonymous asked:

Hei! I'm currently learning Norwegian (Bokmål) on Duolingo and I have a couple questions, if you don't mind me asking! For possessives, are (for an example) "ditt egg" and "egget ditt" both grammatically correct in any sentence structure? examples: "Det er ditt egg" and "Det er egget ditt." And for "ikke," is it used AFTER verbs? example: "jeg spiser ikke egg." I hope this ask wasn't TOO complicated! :) I really love Norwegian and hope I become fluent in it in a couple years!

Hey there!! <33

As for possessives, they would both be grammatically correct in any sentence structure (unless I’m forgetting something atm??) – however if you place the possessive before the noun, it can sound a bit more formal, or even awkward. 

e.g. “Min far er her” would sound more formal than “Faren min er her”, while “Vår lærer er streng” can sound awkward compared to “Læreren vår er streng”, but they’re both grammatically correct! c: It’s usually more common to place the possessive after the noun, though. 

“Ikke” is a bit more complicated – now most of the time, you’ll indeed place it after verb. So you’re more likely to see sentences like:
“Jeg liker ikke grøt.”
“Han er ikke her.”
“Vi dro ikke allikevel.” 


#1. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if it’s part of an embedded clause
(an embedded clause is basically like, a sentence within a sentence, if that makes sense)

So if you were to say this:

“My doctor, who wasn’t very kind, told me to leave.”

- then “ikke” would come before the verb, since “who wasn’t very kind” is an embedded clause

CORRECT: “Doktoren min, som ikke var veldig snill, ba meg dra.”
INCORRECT: “Doktoren min, som var ikke veldig snill, ba meg dra”


#2. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if it’s part of a subordinate clause
a subordinate clause is the extra/technically unnecessary info in a sentence)

So this is a main clause, without a subordinate clause:
“Hun sa det.” - “She said that.”

This is the same clause, but with a subordinate clause:
“Hun sa at han ikke kom. - “She said that he wasn’t coming.”

In this case, “ikke” is placed before the verb (”kom”) because it’s a part of a subordinate clause. On the other hand, if you wanted to say this:
“Hun sa ikke det.” - “She didn’t say that.” 

- then “ikke” would come after the verb (”sa”) because it’s not a part of a subordinate clause.

Basically, if “ikke” is part of the main clause, it’s after the verb - if it’s not, it’s before the verb. 



#3. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if the verb is in the imperative mood
(imperative mood is basically when you’re commanding or requesting someone to do something) 

In other words:
“Jeg løper ikke. (indicative mood/regular mood) = “I’m not running.”
Ikke løp!” (imperative mood/a command) = “Don’t run!”

So, place “ikke” before the verb if you’re commanding or requesting someone to not do something – unless you want to sound like a medieval poet (you can see sentences like “løp ikke” in old poems etc. but that’s about it)

Hope that answered your question! c: