Discussion in 'Vocabulary & Translation Help' started by gypzy, Feb 12, 2006.
How would I say "I am determined to learn Czech" in Czech?
By 4 Now
I have a translation for you: Jsem odhodlaná učit se česky. 8)
Jsem rozhodnutá (na)učit se česky.
Rozhodla jsem se (na)učit se česky.
There's difference between "rozhodnutá" and "odhodlaná".
"Jsem rozhodnutá" means "I'm decided".
"Jsem odhodlaná" means "I plucked up courage" or "I'm encouraged".
"Učit se" means "to learn" ("to be in the process of learning").
"Naučit se" means "to acquire" ("to complete the process of learning successfully").
BTW, we assume only female speaker.
Wow.. what an exhausting explanation! Of course, it depends much on the context we're speaking.. I only gave the most literal translation.
I should say:
Jsem odhodlán (-a) ...
Jsem rozhodnut (-a) ...
I think the nominal forms of the participles sound better in the predicate than the composed ones.
"Jsem odhodlána" - too high-sounding, I think. It's only to use in written form. When speaking, we hardly ever say this form. In my opinion, time after time, the nominal forms are becoming archaisms.
"jsem překvapen" - 32900 times ("jsem prekvapen" - 37800)
"jsem překvapený" - 654 times ("jsem prekvapeny" - 779)
"jsem překvapena" - 826 times
"jsem překvapená" - 981 times
"jsem prekvapena" - 15200 times
similar results for potěšen, okouzlen
I know it has been used in written form, but anyway the results are convincing - at least for the masculine gender.
'Překvapen' is a different word. I know - we're talking about grammar, but I think it's not possible to generalize it after one-word example only. I can see it in the native speaker's point of view - at some words, the nominal forms of the participles are still being used in lively conversation.. but not all of them. 'Překvapen' is still a frequent form, but 'odhodlána' sounds too tightly for me. In this case, I would rather say 'odhodlaná, rozhodnutá' - casually, simply.
BTW> Where've you discovered those amounts?
By the aid of Google. Sorry, I forgot to mention it.
upozorněn, přesvědčen, získán beat upozorněný, přesvědčený, získaný (in predicate, not in attribute, of course)
Accidentally the survey cannot be done for the feminine gender as we cannot identify the forms without diacritic marks (ziskana: získaná x získána).
I hope gypzy is not disencouraged by this disputation .
I think, Majkl is right in general. Nominal form is formal and a little snobbish.
But in this special case, Zeisig is also right. It's because of used passive form and verbal origin of both forms. Passive form itself is also very formal and it is unusual to mix formal and informal forms. Verbal origin is also important, nominal form is more usual in such case, compare:
"jsem rozhodnut" / "jsem rozhodnutý" ("jsem rozhodnuty")
14 500 / 16 600 (548)
"jsem překvapen" ("jsem prekvapen") / "jsem překvapený" ("jsem prekvapeny")
32 900 ( 37 900) / 654 (779)
"jsem mlád" ("jsem mlad") / "jsem mladý" ("jsem mlady")
1150 (1900) / 24 300 (29 900)
Just a side note to throw in the mix:
The position of se in the sentence. Does it follow učit as:
Jsem rozhodnutá (na)učit se česky
or before it as:
Jsem rozhodnutá se (na)učit česky?
Well, now I understand.. You just typed in both the words in Google and seeked up how many times they're used in any various websites, didn't you? Maybe it's because the formal texts beat the casual ones... In general speech, it might be vice versa..
Let's compromise it - both the participles have their own way of usage. Neither the nominal nor the adjectival are more or less important.
However, necessary to say the following: The nominal participles are more formal and can be used only as a part of predicate in passive sentences. They may never be used as attributive adjectives (because of their form, they cannot be dependent on another word parts of a sentence).
2 czechris: I, as a regular czech person, don't see difference there. I would use both and I would make difference in it. Our linguist here will can write lot of posts about it thought. (No offence wer and ziesig).
I agree with Gementricxs.. In the meaning of the sentence, there's no difference. Both the versions are synonymous here.
Not really :| . Actually Wer, not to be nitpicky, the word is "discouraged" instead of "disencouraged". It was a little more info than what I was looking for, though ! Oh well, you can't learn new things without new information.Another Freudism of the day :wink: . Now that I have "mastered" the Czech alphabet, now I have a new phrase I can say while doing the dishes.
Dekuji moc ,
* Actually I do not know if Freud said the "Freudisms of the day." But they sound deep thought, like something he would've said.
But it is no problem to google "disencourage". Do you think it is always incorrectly? I feel there little difference - everybody can be discouraged but only somebody previously encouraged can be disencouraged.
Yes, that's only my feeling an you're native speaker - you're probably right :wink:.
Thank you for notice, I recognize I didn't realized it before.
Wow!, I searched on Google too. I had no idea there was actually a word "disencourage" . I guess I learned something new today. Isn't that just a coincidence, English is my first language and I learned this from a Bohemian. I suppose stranger things can happen. Although from what I gather I think disencourage may mean to purposely knock down someone who is encouraged. I don't believe anyone was trying to do that. Everyone was trying to be helpful.
By 4 Now
What does the word "disencouraged" mean in Czech? I was looking up in a dictionary, but there was no such word presented. I only found "discouraged" which is clear. Could somebody explain me, please?
"Disencourage" doesn't show up in the free online versions of Merriam-Webster, Oxford or dictionary.com (which I think is the American Heritage). A google search shows it in the paid version of Merriam-Webster. Maybe it's one of those words that exists in English, but has a much more common, similarly structured synonym - disencourage:discourage; explicate:explain. Yeah, explicate exists too, but nobody uses it (except Gregory Rabassa).
It's even a little more difficult. 'To explicate' is a verb of a little bit different meaning from 'to explain'. In Czech, we have two different words to translate it.
explain - vysvětlit, vyjasnit
explicate - vyložit
It's very similar, but not the same. Led by the Czech translation, I'd say that 'to explain' means 'to clear up something known', whilst 'to explicate' means 'to present something which is absolutely new'.
It might be that no one differs it nowadays, but I feel the divergence just like this.
Separate names with a comma.