# Auxiliary verbs



## linguist80

Hi, can any native speaker of Czech translate the following sentences:

(i) I have arrived 5 minutes ago

(ii) You have arrived 5 minutes ago

(iii) He has arrived 5 minutes ago

(iv) I have called 5 minutes ago

(v) You have called 5 minutes ago

(vi) He has called 5 minutes ago

(vii) They have arrived 5 minutes ago

(viii) They have called 5 minutes ago

(ix) I have eaten a cake

(x) You have eaten a cake

(xi) He has eaten a cake

(xii) They have eaten a cake

 I am trying to verify that the auxiliary  is systematically omitted in the 3rd person and with any type of verb.

Thank you!!!


----------



## sokol

linguist80 said:


> I am trying to verify that the auxiliary  is systematically omitted in the 3rd person and with any type of verb.


Actually you do not need a translation of the whole paradigm (with several words) for this; it suffices to ask this question alone.


----------



## linguist80

Actually, I would also love to have data concerning the other persons of the paradigm. that is how it works in Linguistics.


----------



## texpert

linguist80 said:


> Hi, can any native speaker of Czech translate the following sentences:
> 
> (i) I have arrived 5 minutes ago
> 
> (ii) You have arrived 5 minutes ago
> 
> (iii) He has arrived 5 minutes ago
> 
> (iv) I have called 5 minutes ago
> 
> (v) You have called 5 minutes ago
> 
> (vi) He has called 5 minutes ago
> 
> (vii) They have arrived 5 minutes ago
> 
> (viii) They have called 5 minutes ago
> 
> (ix) I have eaten a cake
> 
> (x) You have eaten a cake
> 
> (xi) He has eaten a cake
> 
> (xii) They have eaten a cake
> 
> I am trying to verify that the auxiliary is systematically omitted in the 3rd person and with any type of verb.
> 
> Thank you!!!


 
Too busy to fill up the whole questionnaire but it is just as you might have expected: 

Dorazil jsem (před pěti minutami)
Dorazil jsi..
Dorazil..
Dorazili..
Volal jsem..
Volal jsi..
Volal..
Volali..
Jedl jsem (dort)
Jedl jsi..
Jedl..
Jedli..


----------



## jazyk

Statements i to viii should have the simple past rather than the present perfect in English.

i - Přišel jsem před pěti minutami.
ii - Přišel jsi před pěti minutami.
iii - On přišel před pěti minutami.
iv - Zavolal jsem před pěti minutami.
v - Zavolal jsi před pěti minutami.
vi - On zavolal před pěti minutami.
vii - Přišli před pěti minutami.
viii - Zavolali před pěti minutami.
ix - Jedl jsem koláč.
x - Jedl jsi koláč.
xi - Jedli koláč.

Přišel could also be přišla and zavolal could also be zavolala if the subject is a woman (excluding iii and vi, because the subject on is masculine). Zavolali and přišli could also be zavolaly and přišly, respectively. Přišel could also be přijel if they came in a means of transportation. Jedl could also be jedla for feminine or even Snědl(a) in the perfective. It's hard to say without more context.


----------



## linguist80

Wonderful!

Thanks much texpert and jazyk!


----------



## K.u.r.t

jazyk said:


> iii - On přišel před pěti minutami.
> vi - On zavolal před pěti minutami.


In most situations the subject is left out. That is unless you want to stress out that HE (not someone else) arrived 5 mins ago.


----------



## CapnPrep

linguist80 said:


> Actually, I would also love to have data concerning the other persons of the paradigm. that is how it works in Linguistics.


You can also look for the answer in any Czech grammar. Linguists also do this before jumping into their field work.


----------



## linguist80

Thanks CapnPrep for the very insightful suggestion. In any case, what if I have done that already and I still want to double-check the facts with native speakers. Just making sure the data are correct, one never knows


----------



## Fantomas.CZ

Sentences (i) to (viii) are not correct in English - you would use a simple past if a time value is given. But your presumption is correct - in the 3rd person the auxiliary has been left out since some 200 years, at least what I know. It would be "on jest přišel" for "he (has) came" and it was archaic already a hundred years ago.

The other translations:
(ix) I have eaten a cake
Snědl jsem koláč (like in English, must be perfect here, because it was made in the past, but the "consequences" last - the cake is gone 
(x) You have eaten a cake
Snědl jsi koláč.
(xi) He has eaten a cake
Snědl koláč.
(xii) They have eaten a cake
Snědli koláč.

Let's say that the expression "I have eaten a cake" is not fully compliant with "Ho mangiato una focaccia", because in English it means a fact that arose in the past and stil lasts, however in Italian it means purely a past fact.

So in this case you would translate it with the past tense, but in the case of words expressing existence, e. g. "I have lived here for 25 years" translates into "Žiju zde (už) 25 let", so in the present tense.


----------

