|
| Abaoe 1995 | Brezhoneg · Franēais · English · Espańol · Deutsch |
|
David Darr, 2000-03-10 19:54:51 I had been doing a Breton correspondance course through Skol Ober, using the French edition of "Brezhoneg, Buan hag Aes" but got too busy and had to stop for a bit. I am about to re-start again and therefore I have been reviewing the work I had already done. I had gotten through the first two chapters. One thing I found was that I didn't really understand when one uses "n'eus ket" and when one uses "n'eus ... ebet". For example, using some examples similar to what one finds in the book, one says: Glav a zo? Nann, n'eus ket; n'eus ket glav. and one says: Un aval a zo amań? Nann, n'eus ket; n'eus aval ebet amań. Furthermore, to respond negatively to the question, "Un den a zo en ti?" one says, apparently, "N'eus den ebet en ti" and not, "N'eus ket un den en ti". The latter being what I wanted to say. What is the general rule for use of "n'eus ket" vs. "n'eus ... ebet"? In the examples above the only thing that really strikes me as different is that we have "glav a zo" versus "un aval a zo" and "un den a zo", in other words distinct objects (an apple and a man) versus a collective noun (rain). trugarez bras, David in Seattle RE: qquestion about "n'eus ket" Gwenael, 2000-03-11 21:36:35 "Glav zo? N'eus ket." Glav is not countable. "Avaloł zo? N'eus ket, n'eus hini ebet." Avaloł: you can count them. In such sentences, "nann" is not correct. Nann is OK if the question is negative. N'eus ket glav? Nann. Excuse me for my English. I hope you understand. RE: qquestion about "n'eus ket" Yann-Fańch, 2000-03-11 22:56:45 You are right. "ebet" is to be used for objects you can count. it is similar to "aucun" in french. To say : there is no water in the house, you say : N'eus ket dour en ti. To use "ebet", you must use "ur banne" or "un dakenn" : a drop : "N'eus banne dour ebet en ti" there is not a drop of water ... For solid materials, use "un tamm" : a piece : N'eus ket bara en ti : there is no bread in the house N'eus tamm bara ebet in the house : There is not a single piece of bread in the house. RE: question about "n'eus ket" David Darr, 2000-03-12 06:50:03 Trugarez bras Gwenael ha Yann-Fańch Okay, I think this is slowly becoming more transparent. The key word is slowly however. Another, somewhat related question then: Suppose I wanted to say (a ridiculous example I know): That man is a dog. I would say in Breton: An den-se a zo ur c'hi. or: Ur c'hi eo an den-se. So, how would I say the negative of this? Would it be: N'eo ket ur c'hi, an den-se. Is this correct, are there other ways of saying this? Similarly: Ki an den-se eo. (It is that man's dog. - C'est le chien de cet homme-la.) But what about: It isn't that man's dog. Ce n'est pas le chien de cet homme-la. N'eo ket ki an den-se. ?? ken arc'hentań, David e Seattle RE: question about "n'eus ket" Gwenael, 2000-03-12 17:44:40 All your examples are right. But may be in Breton we say more "hennezh" than "an den-se" (and "hemań" more than "an den-mań"). A galon, Gwenael RE: question about "n'eus ket" Yann-Fańch, 2000-03-12 21:53:50 As Gwenael says, all your examples are correct. The difference between : "Ur c'hi eo an den-se" and "An den-se zo ur c'hi" is that you always put the most important word at the beginning. When you answer a question, you must keep the same structure in the answer, and begin with the word that answers the qestion : Piv ZO aze ? Ar mestr-skol ZO aze Piv EO an den-se ? Ar mestr-skol EO an den-se ? Pelec'h EMAŃ al levr ? War an daol EMAŃ al levr. Petra ZO war an daol ? Ul levr ZO war an daol. In english we would say : When do you leave ? I leave tomorrow. In breton : Pegoulz ez it kuit ? Warc'hoazh ez eomp kuit. And NOT : Mont kuit a reomp warc'hoazh. This would answer the question : Petra 'rit warc'hoazh ? What do you do tomorrow ? This is one one the basic and more important structural facts in breton. RE: qquestion about "n'eus ket" Capitaine Muzo, 2000-03-13 18:54:20 My tip is that you should think of "ebet" as "(not) a single..." Capt.M. |
|