# Heralding an infinitive



## Whodunit

In English, the word "to" can herald an infinitive. I often saw that it works in other languages, too: For instance, in Norwegian it is "å" that can introduce an infinitive. For German I can say, that we don't have something like this.

How about your language? How would you say, for example, "*to* err is human?"


----------



## linguist786

*Hindi/Urdu:* 

It's nearly always "-naa" at the end of a word. For example:

बनाना / करना / लिखना / जाना / समझना
(to make/to do/to write/to go/to understand)

*Gujarati:*

It's nearly always "-wu" at the end of the word. For example:

બનાવું / કરવું / લખવું / જવું / સમજવું
(to make/to do/to write/to go/to understand)


----------



## Pivra

बनाना / करना= to do?/ लिखना= to write/ जाना / समझना


hehe i dont know the rest....

 In Thai, we use จะ  in front of the word we want to make it infinitive

เราอยาก*จะ*กิน = I want to eat


----------



## Whodunit

Pivra said:
			
		

> बनाना / करना= to do?/ लिखना= to write/ जाना / समझना
> 
> hehe i dont know the rest....


 
Nor do I, that's why I beg for a translation. 



> In Thai, we use จะ in front of the word we want to make it infinitive
> 
> เราอยาก*จะ*กิน = I want to eat


 
This is not the usage I am referring to. In your example sentence, the word "to" belongs to "want". But the infinitive of the word "want", for instance, is "*to* want".


----------



## Pivra

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Nor do I, that's why I beg for a translation.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the usage I am referring to. In your example sentence, the word "to" belongs to "want". But the infinitive of the word "want", for instance, is "*to* want".


 
OH lol, then there is no infinitive in Thai.

ขอโทษครับ lol    

ps.(ปล.)  คุณอ่านภาษาไทยได้หรือครับ??


----------



## vince

Do non-Indo-European languages have infinitives too?

I think Romanian uses "a" to herald an infinitive, but I don't speak it so I'm not sure.


----------



## linguist786

Oops! how silly of me not to give the translations!

*Hindi:*

बनाना = to make (generally) It can mean different things sometimes too
करना = to do 
लिखना = to write
जाना = to go
समझना = to understand 

*Gujarati:* (same as Hindi above)

બનાવું = to make 
કરવું = to do
લખવું = to write 
જવું = to go
સમજવું = to understand


----------



## Whodunit

vince said:
			
		

> Do non-Indo-European languages have infinitives too?


 
This threads betrays it. 

Arabic doesn't have one, for instance.



> I think Romanian uses "a" to herald an infinitive, but I don't speak it so I'm not sure.


 
Yes, that's right!


----------



## Captain Haddock

_For German I can say, that we don't have something like this._

German certainly has infinitives, the basic -en form of every verb. Most Indo-European languages have infinitives, which are merely the  unconjugated forms of verbs. English happens to be unusual in that its infinitives need an extra word ("to"). I suppose this developed from the German "zu + verb".

English also has a few "defective verbs" like "can" which have no infinitive.

Languages without infinitives usually nominalize their verbs to make sentences like "I want _to eat_." Japanese does that (verb+koto), and I presume Thai as well.


----------



## Tino_no

Spanish, like German, also has an infinitive. In german it's "en", in spanish, it can be "ar, er, ir" depending on the verb.

*To* play - Spiel*en* - Jug*ar*
*To* eat - Ess*en* - Com*er*
*To* die - Sterb*en* - Mor*ir*


----------



## Whodunit

I'm not speaking about whether your language has an infinitive, but whether it has something like an infinitive indicator. The German "zu" does not correspond to the English "to" in this case, since you can't say "zu machen" without context.

The endings "-en" in German, "-ir/...", "-er/.." in Spanish/French do not count, since they don't show that the word is an infinitive or a verb. The word "Frauen" in German is not a verb, but it  ends in "-en"; same goes for French "grossier".


----------



## Outsider

In Portuguese, we would use the bare infinitive in sentences like "To err is human" and "I want to eat". However, we do use the *preposition a* before the infinitive in phrases like _a cantar_, which means "singing". I'm not sure this counts, though, since these phrases do not act as nouns, syntactically.


----------



## gorilla

In Hungarian there are no prepositions, so there is no equivalent of "to".
You can make infinitives (főnévi igenév = nounly verb) adding -ni to the verb.

Lát (see) - látni (to see)
etc


----------



## robbie_SWE

It is correct that Romanian uses "_a_" to express an infinitive. 

*a canta* = _to sing_
*a scri* = _to write_

In Swedish the word "_att_" is used to express the infinitive. 

*att sjunga* = _to sing_
*att skriva* = _to write_

 robbie


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> However, we do use the *preposition a* before the infinitive in phrases like _a cantar_, which means "singing". I'm not sure this counts, though, since these phrases do not act as nouns, syntactically.


 
Could you provide an example sentence, in which you use the preposition _a_? Is it like a gerund in sentences like "singing is my hobby?"


----------



## Outsider

No, like in "John was in the shower, singing".

P.S. Or also "John was singing in the shower".


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> No, like in "John was in the shower, singing".
> 
> P.S. Or also "John was singing in the shower".


 
well, then I wouldn't count it. It is like a present participle in the first sentence, I guess, although I don't know if there's a grammatical term for it.

Wait, could it be like the French gérondif (_en_ chantant)?


----------



## Outsider

It seems similar to it, although I don't think you would use the _gérondif_ in these sentences.


----------



## Etcetera

In Russian, you can recognise an infinitive by the ending only, we have no such infinitive markers as the English 'to'.


----------



## vince

Outsider said:
			
		

> No, like in "John was in the shower, singing".
> 
> P.S. Or also "John was singing in the shower".



Do you mean like "O John estava a cantar no chuveiro"?

If so then it doesn't count because "a" is part of the "estar a" + infinitive construction. Kind of like Pivra's example in Thai where the additional word is not attached to the infinitive.


----------



## OCCASVS

*Italian*Infinitives end with:
-are (prima coniugazione) ex. mangiare, donare, cantare, illuminare
-ere (seconda coniugazione) ex. accadere, cadere, bere, rimanere
-ire (terza coniugazione) ex. dormire, zittire, sentire, morire

Exeptions:
_Dire_, _fare_, _addurre_, _condurre_ and _porre_ are of _seconda coniugazione_, because they're the contract form of Latin dicĕre, facĕre, adducĕre, conducĕre and ponĕre.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:
			
		

> Do you mean like "O John estava a cantar no chuveiro"?
> 
> If so then it doesn't count because "a" is part of the "estar a" + infinitive construction. Kind of like Pivra's example in Thai where the additional word is not attached to the infinitive.


But what about "O João estava no chuveiro, a cantar"? Then it's not a part of "estar a".


----------



## Anatoli

The definition and usage of infinitive is very different in different languages. A dictionary form may also differ from what is used in most case as "to + _verb_"

European languages match in many cases but identifiers may be missing.


All *German* infinitives end in -en. zu can be used in structures and will match English to.

fragen - to ask
Darf ich fragen - May I ask
Ich habe zu sagen - I have to say

*Russian* inf. end in -ть (-t')

Ya hochu skazat' - I want to say

*Japanese* have a vowel -u, attached to whatever consonant or zero consonant. This is strictly speaking an informal personal and dictionary form. Infinitive expressions from English can be translated *in many ways* into Japanese.

kiku - to ask

kiite-mo ii des ka? Can I ask?
kikanakutewa narimasen - I have to ask
etc

*Chinese Mandarin* - no identifier for any parts of language - only position in a sentence and meaning.

shuo - to speak
wo hui shuo - I can speak
wo yinggai shuo - I must speak
wo yao shuo - I want to speak


----------



## vince

Outsider, I believe that in the case you gave, "estar" is implied before "a cantar", no? It appears to me that the only reason why "estar" doesn't appear twice is to avoid repetition

"O João estava no chuveiro, e estava a cantar".



			
				Anatoli said:
			
		

> *Chinese* - no identifier for any parts of language - only position in a sentence and meaning.
> 
> shuo - to speak
> wo hui shuo - I can speak
> wo yinggai shuo - I must speak
> wo yao shuo - I want to speak



A small correction: In Cantonese at least, "yinggoi" (the cognate of Mandarin yinggai) means "should", not "must".

You should also refer to the specific Chinese language, otherwise you are perpetuating the myth that Mandarin = Chinese = Mandarin.

For one thing, "to speak" in Cantonese is exclusively "gong" (Mandarin cognate: jiang), "I can speak" = "Ngo sik gong" (where the "sik" character is pronounced "shi" in Mandarin), "I should speak" = "Ngo yinggoi gong", and "I want to speak" is "Ngo yiu gong (ye)".


----------



## Anatoli

I corrected to Chinese Mandarin, as for should/must, m-goy, you're being picky, IMHO


----------



## Outsider

vince said:
			
		

> Outsider, I believe that in the case you gave, "estar" is implied before "a cantar", no? It appears to me that the only reason why "estar" doesn't appear twice is to avoid repetition
> 
> "O João estava no chuveiro, e estava a cantar".


You have added a conjunction to the sentence which was not there in the example I wrote. Look at the English translation:

*John was in the shower, singing.
*
Would you claim that _to be_ is "implied" before _singing_ here, and that "the only reason why _to be_ doesn't appear twice is to avoid repetition"? I don't think _to be_ needs to be implied, when it's already explicit in another part of the sentence.


----------

