# Icelandic: Particle/Adjective confusino



## ShakeyX

I've been battling this for a while so decided to make this post.

I understand that using vera + past participle, in constructions such as "Ég er kominn" (I am come) indicates a state change rather than "Ég er hér" which simply indicates you are there, could have always been there and doesn't give a sense of arriving or completing a task.

So is;

Ég er hér (að vera)
Ég er kominn (að koma)
Ég kom (að koma)

the same linguistically as.

Ég er vakandi (að vaka)
Ég er vaknaður (að vakna)
ég vaknaði (að vakna)

- So if I want to say I am awake, in general, maybe someone is talking to me and notices I'm not paying attention, might they say "Ertu vakandi?"
- If kids are jumping on me excited for christmas and I've just awoke would I say "okei okei... ég er vaknaður" to indicate I just awoke?
- Finally ég vaknaði... í dag vaknaði ég kl. 9. Stating an action that is completed sometime in the past and doesn't run upto the present itself.

Is this fair to say, someone please correct me if not?

This also leads me to the second question, it is always known how to translate adjectives like "fallegur" and "hamingjusamur" but... how do you translate adjectives that come from verbs. I mean if vaknaður is an adjective in it's own right, then when I say... Hann er vaknaður, is it "He is awoken" or "He is awake"?. Can vaknaður ever be used as a current present adjective without implying the state change of awaking, can it simply be a static adjective? Can any adjective from a verbs past participle be a static adjective?

There was a post similar to this when I first discovered how kominn worked and It was mentioned that if someone is málaður (painted) then it's ofcourse static but it got me thinking, that it ofcourse hints that someone painted him, it's not the same as beautiful where no one actually beautified the person.

P.S. I guess vaknaður can't be used as he is awake, as the verb it comes from is to awake, and að vaka is to be awake. Maybe the english translation can be that he is awake but implies the transition from one state to another with it being past participle...? Right?

P.P.S So sorry I messed up the title... right clicked spell check and clicked the wrong one. Participle/Adjective Confusion


----------



## ShakeyX

Interesting to add that the past participle of Opna! Doesn't match the adjective we used to say something is Open. Whereas the past participle for Loka does match the adjective we used to say something is closed.

I guess this matches english in the sense we say something is open but never something is CLOSE.

I guess what this reinforces for me is that the adjectives that share the same form as past participles are really only viewed as past participles or adjectives within there context but what they are translated as, or the word they are stays the same, so vaknaður must always mean "awoken" in straight translation right? Ofcourse we can say (much like ég er kominn) I am here but really it means I am come and for the purpose of understanding I'd like to stick to the straight translations otherwize this will be a mess. So I guess my confusion originally was thinking that vaknaður as an adjective meant something different to vaknaður as a past participle, but i'll propose now that they are the same word, both awoken, but just in different contexts can be labelled as an adjective or a past participle... There is no way to translate vaknaður as the state of awake, only in english we might say I am awake but hinting at the state change, it's not possible for a static use in the vera + past participle construction, right?

Sorry I know this is a mind fuck but this is how it's in my head at the moment, mind was spinning last night thinking about this.

I guess the only way to use vaknaður as an adjective is like... the awoken beast? if it's modifying a noun? Otherwize að vaka (vakandi) would be used to give something a static reading? aWghhg i'm going insane.


*FINAL NOTE: Okay my logic from english tells me that if something is a past participle, it can be used as an adjective but no way changes in form. The wikipedia entry for Vaknaður says Awake or Awoken... Now I know a translator might translate "ah gott... þú ert vaknaður" if someone was trying to wake someone up but this should indicate in icelandic the same as þú ert kominn indicates, a state change... listing that vaknaður means awake in such a way gave me the impression it could be used for a STATIC reading.. to simply state that someone is awake, this cannot be true right?*


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think you might have had a question originally, but it's become so mangled in a meandering jungle of thoughts and changes of direction, that it's virtually impossible to give you any sort of close answer to what I believe you want to ask. Rather than just ignoring the question, the only thing I can do is focus on the last thing you said, as that's the closest thing to an actual question, but which still needs a_ lot_ of clarification.


> FINAL NOTE: Okay my logic from english tells me that if something is a past participle, it can be used as an adjective but no way changes in form. The wikipedia entry for Vaknaður says Awake or Awoken... Now I know a translator might translate "ah gott... þú ert vaknaður" *(translate to what??)* if someone was trying to wake someone up but this should indicate in icelandic the same as þú ert kominn indicates, a state change *(and doesn't it? What are you saying here?)* ... listing that vaknaður means awake in such a way gave me the impression it could be used for a STATIC reading *(but 'awake' can easily be a state change, too)*.. to simply state that someone is awake, this cannot be true right?



What distinction are you trying to make? That_ vaknaður _has to be for someone who has just woken up? Yeah, that's a pretty normal/generalisable observation. But I don't understand what you're challenging? You seem to be implying because _vaknaður _is listed as awake, that therefore it implies that it can be use to simply state that someone is awake, but I don't see what logic you're using to make that deduction.

"Ertu vaknaður? Ég heyrði vekjaraklukku hringja."
"Are you up/awake? I heard an alarm going off."

I know you would agree with the translation, so how would vaknaður being listed with 'awake' mean that it also can be used in other circumstances? I think you might need to come up with a better system of making logical deductions, because having an association one way absolutely doesn't imply that it goes the other way. What I'm saying here is that, while at the end of a long day we can say exactly the same thing in the translation above, to someone who has been awake all day (in English), but there is no logical consequence that means that_ vaknaður_ would be correct (which is what you seem to be concluding).

*Context*: Bill needs to get up for work at 8am every day:

#1: Monday 08:15am - "Bill? Ertu _vaknaður_?" (Bill? Are you awake?) [He needs to get up for work]
#2: Thursday 03:15am - "Bill? Ertu _vakandi_?" (Bill? Are you awake?) [Someone asking if he hasn't gone to sleep yet]

When you make an association between 'awake' and 'vaknaður', be careful to not think that vaknaður can be used everywhere where we use 'awake'.
I hope I understood (that part) of your question. You seemed to say a lot of points which are right in your first post, it's just a shame I can't make heads nor tails of what you are asking.  Simplicity and clarity is the key.


----------



## ShakeyX

You managed, somehow, to wade through all my bullshit and come with the perfect answer. You deserve great reward! (no jokes)

I'm sorry I even stated my self my post was a mess but that's because in my head, the subject was a mess, I was going a bit mental and over thinking this topic. What you stated is what I originally thought, it was simply that listing this as meaning AWAKE, made me think it parallels our adjective awake in a way that you could describe someone statically awake by using vaknaður. This was my problem. I guess that's why (for me atleast) it's easier to understand that in archaic forms of English we did say "I am come" and it made sense, and it helps when making comparisons with Icelandic. I would rather think "I am awoken" and then make the logical translation than "I am awake" and wonder what happened.

Simply put:

Vaknaður doesn't equal 'awake' THE WORD. Simply a translation in english leads to awake being used. Vakandi implies the state of awake Vaknaður means awoken and implies the transition.

Now what I see here is we have Vakandi (að vaka present participle) and Vaknaður (að vakna past participle) static and event respectively. I guess this has more to do with the fact the verb describes an event or process moreso then the fact it is past participle.

i.e. að nota, notaður.. if something is used, you don't get an event reading from it, it is stative right? Even though it is a past participle and we wouldn't say something is "notandi" to mean used.

So is this whole construction er kominn, er vaknaður... the event reading, tied to verbs that have some sort of state change inherent in the verb itself?


----------



## Alxmrphi

You're pretty much on the ball with the distinction, I believe. You can highlight such a difference between verbs that have different forms for whether it is a state or an event (i.e. vaka = state; vakna = event) and that's what lends this specific verb to be a good way to point out the contrast, but some verbs don't have such a nice verb-pair distinction.


> So is this whole construction er kominn, er vaknaður... the event reading, tied to verbs that have some sort of state change inherent in the verb itself?


I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's inherent to the verb itself, though it could be. It's the construction as a whole (i.e. when it can be combined with _vera_) that gives the specific event/state reading sometimes. Basically, I'm trying to say you've got the right general idea, I'm just cautioning you away from making a rigid definition that might not be the case in other examples.


----------



## ShakeyX

So in short, in the style of a kids cartoon or something, it would be completely incorrect to say:

Þetta er John. Hann er að vinna. *Hann er vaknaður.

That would be categorically wrong if he was just standing there, dressed, typing away on his computer. It's just I swear I saw some "formspring" style posts like... "hver er vaknaður" and it struck me as weird. As if what I have took from this is correct, that is completely odd thing to ask... it's like, who has just woken up, but the message itself was "hver er vaknaður, sendið mér skilaboð, mér leiðist"... I know I should not take my advice from comments written on such sites and stick to more reliable sources but I thought it would be stupid to ignore this and wanted to check the usage of vaknðaur. but it seems what I originally thought was correct.

So it isn't the fact something is past participle that makes it an event, it's more the construction coupled with specific verbs with trigger such readings, such as ég er kominn.

Just interesting that:

Var notaður (passive ambiguous)
Var notaður af einhverjum (passive event)
Var notaður þegar ég sá hann (passive static)

Er notaður (static)

Er vaknaður (event)

The only way I can explain this difference to myself at the moment is that it is because to awake is to go from one state to another much like að koma is to go from one place to another or to arrive. I know you've already said it isn't worth delving into, just showing you how I lay it out and why it tripped me up. Makes me wonder why "er notaður" can't give an event reading also? Can it?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> It's just I swear I saw some "formspring" style posts like... "hver er vaknaður" and it struck me as weird. As if what I have took from this is correct, that is completely odd thing to ask... it's like, who has just woken up, but the message itself was "hver er vaknaður, sendið mér skilaboð, mér leiðist"... I know I should not take my advice from comments written on such sites and stick to more reliable sources but I thought it would be stupid to ignore this and wanted to check the usage of vaknðaur. but it seems what I originally thought was correct.


I don't know what formspring is, but if this happened pretty early in the morning, why do you think it wouldn't be totally fine to use?


> Var notaður af einhverjum (passive event)


This doesn't have to be an event at all. It could be a statement something was used by someone for a long period of time.


> Er vaknaður (event)


This isn't an event, it's a state. The new state of something just happening. "Vakna" is an event.


> The only way I can explain this difference to myself at the moment is that it is because to awake is to go from one state to another much like að koma is to go from one place to another or to arrive.


The verb in English is _to awake*n*_. I noticed you used it before but thought it was a typo, but thought it's best to point it out since it was second time. The rest of the sentence is correct (i.e. what you're saying).


> Makes me wonder why "er notaður" can't give an event reading also? Can it?


Do you think it should be able to? Can you think of anything, even in English, where "is used" would be an event? You could be using the adjective here, in which case no event reading is possible. You could force an event reading with something like "_This device was used for the first time in 10 years, last night._" That relies on a lot more than just the verb. I'm not sure where you're going with this though. There is no pattern to be found among the constructions, the possibilities come directly from what the verbs themselves encode in their meaning. Some will be possible in some constructions, others would not. You can't map them into categories and draw conclusions about what might be states and what might be events, without, every single time, using what you know about that specific verb, in order to confirm whether it's right or not.


----------



## ShakeyX

I think I see what you mean in conclusion, once again thanks for the time explaining simple shit that I've rewired in my head.

I see that a sentence itself is evaluated as state/event rather than factors in it having inherent event/state attributes. It's better to say the final result gives a particular reading then saying... Að nota (event verb/static verb). I gotcha. It just happens that at one point in both our languages saying I am come and I am awoken was enough to express I have awoken today.

OH, quick other point this raised in my head.

Ég hef gert eitthvað (I have done something sometime in the past)
Ég er búinn að gera eitthvað (I have done something that leads up to the present)

What is the difference between Ég er vaknaður and Ég er búinn að vakna? Or is that just something that isn't used due to the former being usable. They both seem to go from past state to present unlike the "ég hef" construction.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> What is the difference between Ég er vaknaður and Ég er búinn að vakna? Or is that just something that isn't used due to the former being usable. They both seem to go from past state to present unlike the "ég hef" construction.


While I do have a lot to say on that topic, I think I'd mix my own interpretations and potentially say something that wasn't quite right.
That's more of a question for a native or someone with more experience to answer.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Ég er vaknaður/vöknuð = I have (just) woken up / I am awake
Ég er búin(n) að vakna = I have woken up (more general)

Pretty sure you'd only use the first construction to talk about a recent change in your (or someone else's) state, from asleep to awake. What qualifies as recent is not set in stone, and could change according to interpretation. For example, if someone had been in a coma for months and she came out of it yesterday, "Hún er vöknuð" would still be a fine way to impart the news.

You'd use the second one to talk about completing the act of waking up if you understand what I mean, rather than a change of state. You could say, for example, "Ég er búin að vakna kl. 8 á hverjum degi í þessa viku", or "Hann er ekki búinn að vakna í 11 klukkustundir". Or "Barnið mitt er búið að vakna nokkrum sinnum í nótt", where the child probably went back to sleep each time it awoke.


----------



## ShakeyX

This was really helpful. I just believe personally that a dictionary entry for vaknaður really shoulnd't include "awake". I fully understand why it's included and Alxmrphi's reason for it, but my confusion came from taking it as a literal translation and thinking it could be used as such, where the truth really is that it literally means one thing, but in certain constructions can give the semantic meaning that someone is awake... or be used in a situation where in our own language we would use "are you awake?"

I really do feel though that to say as a definition in a dictionary it means awake is a bit misleading. It's KINDOF like saying "við" means with, without any sort of validation or construction, so yes tala við can mean talk with but you couldn't say I went to the shops við Jake today. I hope you can understand where the confusion came from, and led me to believe that past participles were becoming present adjectives (whereas they just give that semantic message however I don't think anyone would assimilate the word with awake, I think most Icelanders would say "are you awoken" and then correct themselves and put it into a more natural translation.

Yeh.. no real issue just wanted to show you what was going on in  my mind. I fully understand everything said, I just think to right the defintion as "awake" without a sidenote sort of rings false to me.


----------

