wugi wrote:

> Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>> NB [...]
>>
>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
>> Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
>> does he say?
>>
>> "Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
>> Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
>> Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
>>
>> Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
>> https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
>> "5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
>>
>> Become?
>> But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
>>
>> Really quite puzzled.

> It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
> I suppose it works also in sp.

> No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
> One may not be an anti-democrat here.

> No se puede estar tranquilo.
> One can't be at ease.

Apparently even with "puede serse".

Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200

I think that's pretty rare, though.

> No se puede bailar allá.
> Dancing is not allowed/possible there.

> Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.

(That needs a "nor". If you don't want to use "nor" before the
ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)

It might depend on what you mean by "reflexive". If you mean
something that would be translated as "dance itself", then
that's probably true.

I happen to know of what looks like a reflexive "ser" in
poetry:

Cuando el Ser que se es hizo la nada
y reposó, que bien lo merecía,
ya tuvo el día noche, y compañía
tuvo el hombre en la ausencia de la amada.

Antonio Machado, "Al gran cero".

When Being that is itself made nothingness
and took a well-deserved rest,
day finally had its night, and man
had company in the absence of his beloved.

Armand F. Baker trans.

https://armandfbaker.github.io/translations/apocryphal/CLXVII_abel_martin.pdf

--
Jerry Friedman

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:27:33 +0100: wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> scribeva:

>Op 30/03/2024 om 8:39 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:12:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
>> scribeva:
>>>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>>>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
>>>> is.
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
>>> 12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
>>
>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
>> 09:18 Queremos ser humanos, e nunca deixar de o ser.
>>
>
>Aha, 'nunca' [alone] of course. That's what my dico gives also for
>'never', not 'nunca mais'.

But for the slogan jaMAIS has the right stress, and NUNca hasn't.
OK, now in Portuguese culture, contradictory stresses in music and
language are quite common, so that need not be a problem. What's more
convincing is that all the historic sources clearly have jamais and
not nunca.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:21:38 +0100: wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> scribeva:

>Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>> NB [...]
>>
>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
>> Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
>> does he say?
>>
>> "Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
>> Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
>> Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
>>
>> Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
>> https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
>> "5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
>>
>> Become?
>> But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
>>
>> Really quite puzzled.
>
>It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
>I suppose it works also in sp.

That must be it! Why didn't I think of that?

The construction is less common in Portuguese, but also possible.
Without the hyphen then, I suppose.

"Em Portugal não pode ser se officialmente anti-comunista.
Mas parece dever ser se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.

In Portugal one cannot be officially anti-communist.
But it seems one has to be officially anti social democrat.

"Se" is deliberately vague, because in the then context, everybody
knew who he meant: Francisco da Costa Gomes, presidente da República,
and José Pinheiro de Azevedo, primeiro-ministro.

>No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
>One may not be an anti-democrat here.
>
>No se puede estar tranquilo.
>One can't be at ease.
>
>No se puede bailar allá.
>Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
>
>Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:09:23 +0000: jerry.friedman99@gmail.com
(jerryfriedman) scribeva:

>wugi wrote:
>
>> Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>>> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>>> NB [...]
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
>>> Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
>>> does he say?
>>>
>>> "Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
>>> Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
>>> Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
>>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
>>>
>>> Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
>>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
>>> https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
>>> "5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
>>>
>>> Become?
>>> But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
>>>
>>> Really quite puzzled.
>
>> It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
>> I suppose it works also in sp.
>
>> No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
>> One may not be an anti-democrat here.
>
>> No se puede estar tranquilo.
>> One can't be at ease.
>
>Apparently even with "puede serse".

European Portuguese, other that Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish,
tends to place personal pronouns (in the dative and accusative,
anyway, but here it is nominative) after the conjugated verb, not
before, unless there is a "magnet word".

>Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.
>
>https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
>
>I think that's pretty rare, though.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>> Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>>> Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
>>>>
>>>> That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
>>>
>>> That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
>>
>> Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_
>> and it actually scans better.
>
> What's the metre then? Does .ca. coincide with .já., and 'nung' gets
> an extra syllable?
>
> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>
> Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
> is.

o POV-o
u-NI-do
nun-ca MAIS se
rá ven-CI-do

(for the war cry, of course. other uses may have other timings.)

You forget our willingness to fit two syllables into one. That's already
what happens with '-rá ven-', 'nun-ca' mirrors it.

wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
> Op 30/03/2024 om 8:39 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:12:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
>> scribeva:
>>>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>>>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
>>>> is.
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/um-povo-unido-dentro-e-fora-do-pais/
>>> 12:33, 12:51, 13:57, 15:30. Sempre 'jamais'
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
>>
>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/manifestacao-dos-trabalhadores-da-tlp-em-lisboa/
>> 09:18 Queremos ser humanos, e nunca deixar de o ser.
>>
>
> Aha, 'nunca' [alone] of course. That's what my dico gives also for
> 'never', not 'nunca mais'.

At no point has anyone in this thread indicated that 'nunca mais' was the
default translation of 'never'.

In this specific case, 'nunca' means 'under no circumstances'.

wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
> Op 28/03/2024 om 23:47 schreef Antonio Marques:
>> wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>>> Op 28/03/2024 om 12:26 schreef Peter Moylan:
>>>> On 28/03/24 21:56, wugi wrote:
>>>>> Op 27/03/2024 om 23:06 schreef Antonio Marques:
>>>>>> Antonio Marques <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
>>>>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (A curious touch of using 'nunca mais' there is the light implication
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the people united were defeated in the past, but won't be again.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. Which makes it different from 'jamais' or whatever you want in
>>>>> its place.
>>>>>
>>>>> fr. "ne ... jamais"  ==/==  "ne ... plus jamais".
>>>>>
>>>>> sp. "jamás" ==/== "nunca más"
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's look at a French example.
>>>> Je n'y irai jamais.
>>>> Je n'y irai plus jamais.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the second strongly suggests that I've been there before, but the
>>>> change in meaning comes only from the extra word "plus". "Jamais" still
>>>> means the same in the two cases.
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, "jamais" is a common word in French, while I gather
>>>> that it is a lot less common in Portuguese. Its use in Portuguese seems
>>>> to be the central point in this discussion.
>>>
>>> It is, but the given alternative "nunca mais" seems to have landed off
>>> the intended meaning of '*'jamais.
>>>
>>
>> NB _nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed
>> to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
>
> So then, which term represents the latter?

Usually plain 'nunca'. And 'jamais' can also do. As
altura/momento/ocasião/tempo either preceded or followed by nenhum(a), or
followed (not preceded) by algum(a).

>> But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean
>> 'never (again)'.
>
> It certainly sounds like this, not like "never before, now, and after".

What I said is that 'nunca mais' can always refer to the future even if
there was no past instance, but according to context there may be a past
instance or not:

_se deitares isso ao poço, nunca mais ninguém o encontra_ 'if you throw
that into the well, nobody will ever find it'

vs

_se prenderes isso com uma fita, nunca mais o perdes_ 'if you fasten that
with a strap, you'll never lose it again'

(In any of the cases, to use plain nunca the rest would have to be edited
to be grammatical.)

On 29/03/24 09:47, Antonio Marques wrote:

> NB_nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed
> to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
> But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean
> 'never (again)'.

Quoth the raven ...

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 29/03/24 09:47, Antonio Marques wrote:
>
>> NB_nunca mais_ is the actual idiom for 'never (in the future)', as opposed
>> to 'never (in the past, the present, or the future)'.
>> But if taking about something that may have existed before, it can mean
>> 'never (again)'.
>
> Quoth the raven ...
>

😁 Indeed, translators have had their life made easier by the fact that
-ais can also occur as the plural of the many -al words, the smaller set of
-ai words, and the 2nd person plural verb ending.

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
> Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
> does he say?

I don't have a keyboard with me now, I'll provide a transcription when I
do.

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:16:48 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:05 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>> Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:29:42 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Um povo unido jamais será vencido.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a colombian slogan and when you hear it here the pods are that
>>>>> 'nunca mais' will be substituted.
>>>>
>>>> That would wreck the metre, and make it unusable as a slogan.
>>>
>>> Erm, again, when you here it in the wild in Portugal it's with _nunca mais_
>>> and it actually scans better.
>>
>> What's the metre then? Does .ca. coincide with .já., and 'nung' gets
>> an extra syllable?
>>
>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - jaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>> UmPÔv - uNId(u) - nuncaMAIS seRÁ venCID(u)
>>
>> Doesn't fit. I can't imagine how that might sound. As a slogan, that
>> is.
>
>o POV-o
>u-NI-do
>nun-ca MAIS se
>rá ven-CI-do
>
>(for the war cry, of course. other uses may have other timings.)
>
>You forget our willingness to fit two syllables into one. That's already
>what happens with '-rá ven-', 'nun-ca' mirrors it.

Yes, but stressed /u/ and unstressed /3/ are not among the ones that
are easily and most commonly compressed in EP (European Portuguese =
pt-PT). The easiest ones are unstressed /u/ spelled <o> and unstressed
/1/ spelled <e>.

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:28:19 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
<no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>_se deitares isso ao poço, nunca mais ninguém o encontra_ 'if you throw
>that into the well, nobody will ever find it'
>
>vs
>
>_se prenderes isso com uma fita, nunca mais o perdes_ 'if you fasten that
>with a strap, you'll never lose it again'

Nice examples. They also show how complicated the choice of tenses can
be, even in related languages:
pt: conjuntivo do futuro - presente
en: present - future
nl: present - present.

For in Dutch the sentences could be:
Als je dat in de put gooit, kan niemand het ooit meer terugvinden.
Als je dat vastzet met een band/riem/gordel/touw, raak je het nooit
meer kwijt. (of: kan je het nooit meer kwijtraken).

Op 30/03/2024 om 17:09 schreef jerryfriedman:
> wugi wrote:
>
>> Op 30/03/2024 om 8:48 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>>> Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:47:06 -0000 (UTC): Antonio Marques
>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> scribeva:
>>>> NB [...]
>>>
>>> https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/conferencia-de-imprensa-de-francisco-de-sa-carneiro/
>>> Even very slow Portuguese I still have difficulty understanding. What
>>> does he say?
>>>
>>> "Em Portugal não pode ser-se officialmente anti-comunista.
>>> Mas parece dever ser-se officialmente anti-socialdemocrata.
>>> Isto está profundamente errado, e é contrário à isenção ao pluralismo
>>> e ao respeito à democracia ..."
>>>
>>> Ser-se? Can "ser" be a reflexive verb? If so, what would it mean?
>>> https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/ser
>>> https://dicionario.priberam.org/ser
>>> "5. Estar, ficar, tornar-se."?
>>>
>>> Become?
>>> But then, the "em" at the beginning would be ungrammatical, no?
>>>
>>> Really quite puzzled.
>
>> It's not a reflexive construction, but an impersonal one.
>> I suppose it works also in sp.
>
>> No se puede ser anti-demócrata acá.
>> One may not be an anti-democrat here.
>
>> No se puede estar tranquilo.
>> One can't be at ease.
>
> Apparently even with "puede serse".
>
> Octavio Paz demostró que en estos barrios sí puede serse conciso y preciso.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=5xpz_L3XKFgC&pg=PT200
>
> I think that's pretty rare, though.
>
>> No se puede bailar allá.
>> Dancing is not allowed/possible there.
>
>> Neither ser, estar, bailar... can be reflexive.
>
> (That needs a "nor".  If you don't want to use "nor" before the
> ellipsis, I'd advise finding another way to say it.)

Neither ser, nor estar, bailar and similar can be reflexive. ok?

> It might depend on what you mean by "reflexive".  If you mean
> something that would be translated as "dance itself", then
> that's probably true.

It's kind of a calque of the passive construction with "se".
Se come mucho (or -as) papas en este país.
Potatoes are much eaten in this country.

Save that here we have intransitive and modal (if that's the term I
want) verbs. They are then put in a kind of impersonal passive.

Exactly this we can also do in Dutch:
(transitive "eten", eat)
*Er worden* veel aardappelen *gegeten* in dit land.
[impersonal "pre-subject", instead of
"Veel aardappelen *worden gegeten* in dit land."]

(intransitive "dansen", dance)
*Er wordt* daar vaak *gedanst*.
Se baila a menudo allá.
There's often dancing there.

> I happen to know of what looks like a reflexive "ser" in
> poetry:
>
> Cuando el Ser que se es hizo la nada
> y reposó, que bien lo merecía,
> ya tuvo el día noche, y compañía
> tuvo el hombre en la ausencia de la amada.
>
> Antonio Machado, "Al gran cero".
>
> When Being that is itself made nothingness
> and took a well-deserved rest,
> day finally had its night, and man
> had company in the absence of his beloved.
> Armand F. Baker trans.
>
> https://armandfbaker.github.io/translations/apocryphal/CLXVII_abel_martin.pdf

Nice example. Which reminds me of the case-problem of objects of verbs
equivalent to "to be" (in Latin they would be in nominatives).

I am I/me?
I am you and you are I/me?
I am not myself.
It is I/me!

Ik ben ik/mij?
Ik ben jij/jou en jij bent ik/mij?
Ik ben mezelf niet. (not: ikzelf)
Ik ben het! Hij is het! (Nl.)
Het ben ik! Het is hij/hem! (Fl.)

God:
Ik ben die ben. I am who (I?) am. Ego sum qui sum. Or wittily:
I am that Ben!

--
guido wugi