# Macedonian: What did you say?



## cr00mz

Hello

 I was wondering if this question could be asked as "што ти рече?" and mean "what did you say?" and not mean "what did he/she say to you"`


----------



## Kartof

No, at least not in Bulgarian because the "ти" is taken to be the indirect object clitic in that position.  You have to put the "ти" first in the sentence, then the question word and finally the verb.  I'm not sure if this is exactly the same in Macedonian due to the different clitic placement rules though.  Typically, you wouldn't need the "ти" at all unless you're trying to especially stress the fact that you're speaking to a certain person rather than someone previously mentioned in conversation (due to the fact that the 2nd and 3rd person singular verbs in the aorist and imperfect tenses have the same form of course).


----------



## iobyo

_Што ти рече? _(with intonation on _што_) means "what did he/she say to you?".

_Ти што рече?_ (with intonation on _ти_) is like the English "what did *you* say?" with intonation on 'you'.


----------



## Duya

It could be in BCS, though 1) it sounds unlikely and a bit artificial (one would normally use perfect rather than aorist: _Šta si ti rekao?_ 'What did you say?') and 2) Even if used, they could be discerned by intonation: nominative 'ti' is stressed, and dative 'ti' is clitic.


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> 1) it sounds unlikely and a bit artificial (one would normally use perfect rather than aorist: _Šta si ti rekao?_ 'What did you say?')



For inquiring about what a person said further in the past, yes, _Šta si (ti) rekao?_ is better. But for asking and/or expressing puzzlement/consternation/outrage over something the collocutor just said, _Šta reče (ti)?_ would be appropriate.


----------



## Gnoj

Either "*Ти* што рече?", "Што рече *ти*?" or simply "Што рече?" would be equally correct for "What did *you* say?".
"Што *ти* рече?", "*Тој/таа* што *ти* рече?" or "Што *ти* рече *тој/таа*?" means "What did *he/she* say *to you*".

I = јас, me = мене = *ме*, to me = (на) мене = *ми*
you (sg) = *ти*, you = тебе = *те*, to you = (на) тебе = *ти *(_two identically looking, but different *ти-*s _)
he = тој, him = него = *го*, to him = нему/на него = *му*
she = таа, her = неа = *ја*, to her = нејзе/на неа = *ѝ*

we = ние, us = нас = *нѐ*, to us = нам/на нас = *ни*
you (pl) = вие, you = вас = *ве*, to you = вам/на вас = *ви*
they = тие, them = нив = *ги*, to them = ним им/на нив = *им*


----------



## iobyo

Gnoj said:


> "Што рече *ти*?"



This sounds odd to me, almost like a vocative: "what did you say, you?!".


----------



## Gnoj

iobyo said:


> This sounds odd to me, almost like a vocative: "what did you say, you?!".


In such a case it would be "Што рече*,* ти?", the coma makes difference.


----------



## cr00mz

What about "Што тој/таа рече?"

Is this possible?


----------



## Brainiac

cr00mz said:


> What about "Што тој/таа рече?"
> 
> Is this possible?



It is possible, but at least in BCS, this "тој/таа" ( "тај/та", српски) is somehow offensive, since it means the speaker doesn't know the name of a person, or doesn't know the person at all, or the speaker knows him/her but doesn't want to call that dude by his/her name. "What did that dude say?", something like that, in English. The "acceptable" variant is if a person is surprised or with disbelief ("What did he say????")


----------



## Gnoj

Brainiac said:


> It is possible, but at least in BCS, this *"тој/таа" ("тај/та", српски)* is somehow offensive, since it means the speaker doesn't know the name of a person, or doesn't know the person at all, or the speaker knows him/her but doesn't want to call that dude by his/her name. "What did that dude say?", something like that, in English. The "acceptable" variant is if a person is surprised or with disbelief ("What did he say????")


It isn't offensive, because in this particular case "toj/taa" is actually "on/ona" (*he*/*she*) in BCS. If we say "тој човек" or "таа жена", then it's "taj čovek"/"ta žena" (*that* man/*that* woman) in BCS. Referring to a person with *овој*/*оваа*/*оној*/*онаа* (BCS: ovaj/ova/onaj/ona, English: *this one*/*that one*) is offensive.

So (just for cr00mz):
*Овој човек* вели дека... = *This man* says that.. - not offensive
Овој студент... = This student... - not offensive
Оваа девојка... = This girl... - not offensive

*Овој* вели дека... = *This one* says that... - offensive
*Оваа* не сака да слуша = *This one* doesn't want to listen - offensive
Одведи го *оној* = Take *that one* away - offensive


----------



## Brainiac

Gnoj said:


> It isn't offensive, because in this particular case "toj/taa" is actually "on/ona" (*he*/*she*) in BCS. If we say "тој човек" or "таа жена", then it's "taj čovek"/"ta žena" (*that* man/*that* woman) in BCS. Referring to a person with *овој*/*оваа*/*оној*/*онаа* (BCS: ovaj/ova/onaj/ona, English: *this one*/*that one*) is offensive.
> 
> So (just for cr00mz):
> *Овој човек* вели дека... = *This man* says that.. - not offensive
> Овој студент... = This student... - not offensive
> Оваа девојка... = This girl... - not offensive
> 
> *Овој* вели дека... = *This one* says that... - offensive
> *Оваа* не сака да слуша = *This one* doesn't want to listen - offensive
> Одведи го *оној* = Take *that one* away - offensive



When you call a person "taj", for example: "Šta taj tamo hoće?", it is offensive, it reflects irritability. If you say: "Šta taj čovek hoće?" it's not offensive (but even here one can feel mild irritation in the sentence), because you used the word "man", unlike my first example, when the person is reduced to seemingly insignificant "taj". In that way I meant - it may sound offensive. 



> Што тој/таа рече?


_Шта тај човек рече?_ or even better _Шта је тај човек рекао?_ is more acceptable to me.


----------



## Kartof

Brainiac said:


> _Шта тај човек рече?_ or even better _Шта је тај човек рекао?_ is more acceptable to me.



I'm pretty sure that in Macedonian, like in Bulgarian, the aorist is preferred over the present perfect in this case.


----------



## Brainiac

Kartof said:


> I'm pretty sure that in Macedonian, like in Bulgarian, the aorist is preferred over the present perfect in this case.



Oh, I didn't want to pinpoint a specific tense, but that "naked" _тој/таа._
I believe you meant -  _аорист _is preferred over _перфекат_. (Serbian _аорист _partly serves as English present perfect tense. Is there the present perfect tense in Bulgarian or Macedonian? In Serbian it doesn't exist. I found this thread  about Bulgarian tenses.)

 In spoken Serbian too, in informal conversation. But generally, (in Serbian) _перфекат _is more common and far more spread.


----------



## Gnoj

Brainiac said:


> When you call a person "taj", for example: "Šta taj tamo hoće?", it is offensive, it reflects irritability. If you say: "Šta taj čovek hoće?" it's not offensive (but even here one can feel mild irritation in the sentence), because you used the word "man", unlike my first example, when the person is reduced to seemingly insignificant "taj". In that way I meant - it may sound offensive.


Yes, but as I explained earlier, "toj" in Macedonian doesn't always necessarily correspond to "taj" in BCS, it can also be "on", and that was the case we were talking about.

So:
Što reče *toj* = Šta je *on* rekao
Što reče *toj čovek* = Šta je *taj čovek* rekao



Brainiac said:


> _Шта тај човек рече?_ or even better _Шта је тај човек рекао?_ is more acceptable to me.


This is not valid for Macedonian. We can say "Што рекол тој човек?", but it won't have the same meaning as the "Што рече тој човек?". "Што рек*ол* тој човек?" means something like "What *have you been told or heard* he has said?". So we use that form only when we're talking about something we've read, heard or been told be someone else and we haven't witnessed personally.


----------



## Gnoj

Kartof said:


> I'm pretty sure that in Macedonian, like in Bulgarian, the aorist is preferred over the present perfect in this case.


Perfect tense in Macedonian is formed with "имам", but that's not 100% consistent in the standard language.

I have read = имам (про)читано
I have been = сум бил (in Western-most dialect there is also "имам бидено" and "биден сум")


----------



## Brainiac

Gnoj said:


> Yes, but as I explained earlier, "toj" in Macedonian doesn't always necessarily correspond to "taj" in BCS, it can also be "on", and that was the case we were talking about.
> 
> *The same in Serbian. *
> 
> So:
> Što reče *toj* = Šta je *on* rekao = *Šta reče taj*?
> Što reče *toj čovek* = *Šta reče taj čovek?*
> 
> *But don't you feel that when you use demonstrative pronoun taj (toj) instead of on, it's like you said - that guy there, what has he said? What has that chap said? - it's a sign of disrespect. I don't know if toj in Macedonian is equal to on (=he), but in Serbian it isn't. "What has THAT said?", something like that in English. Toj in Serbian, among peasants,  means to (=it), and calling someone in neuter form is even worst. *
> 
> This is not valid for Macedonian. We can say "Што рекол тој човек?", but it won't have the same meaning as the "Што рече тој човек?". "Што рек*ол* тој човек?" means something like "What *have you been told or heard* he has said?". So we use that form only when we're talking about something we've read, heard or been told be someone else and we haven't witnessed personally.
> 
> 
> *Again it's (almost) the same. Perfekat "lasts".
> "Што рече тој човек?", with reče like aorist demonstrates transience of the action/effect, something short-lasting, so the interpretation of the sentence may easily be put like: "What he has fumbled?" or "Has he said something?"
> You may here expressions Ma šta reče!/? or Šta ono reče? (= What have you said, sorry, I haven't heard/ I forgot). Now in combination with taj - imagine the feeling!*



Sorry guys, I've invaded Macedonian thread . I'll shut up now.


----------



## Gnoj

Brainiac said:


> *But don't you feel that when you use demonstrative pronoun taj (toj) instead of on, it's like you said - that guy there, what has he said? What has that chap said? - it's a sign of disrespect.*


No, I don't feel that way, because there is no "on" in Macedonian. There's only "toj", that's what I've been trying to tell you all along.  "On" is only a dialect/slang/colloquial form in spoken Macedonian, some even consider it a serbism. Either way, its use is informal and limited to the Northern-most regions of the country.


----------



## cr00mz

Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but if I say "човекот рекол дека има пари" does that mean "(I heared) The man has said that there is money"? 

If yes, what would you say if you stood beside the man as he said this sentence?


----------



## Gnoj

cr00mz said:


> Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but if I say "човекот рекол дека има пари" does that mean "(I heared) The man has said that there is money"?
> If yes, what would you say if you stood beside the man as he said this sentence?


Човекот *рекол* дека има пари. - (*Somebody else claims that*) the man *said* he has money.
Човекот *рече* дека има пари. - (*I/We claim that*) the man *said* he has money. You don't know if that claim is true, so you can also put it this way:
Човекот *имал* пари.  (*Somebody else claims*) that the man *has* money.
Човекот *има* пари. - (*I/We claim that*) the man *has* money.


----------



## cr00mz

Rekol and Imal, that is from the present perfect, no? Shouldn't it be; 

_the man *has said* he has money _and _the man *has had* money
_
The man had money - čovekot imaše pari
The man has had money - čovekot imal pari

The man said - čovekot reče
The man has said - čovekot rekol

or am I wrong?


----------



## lordwings

You're messing up the present perfect and the rennarative mood in macedonian and bulgarian.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

cr00mz said:


> I was wondering if this question could be asked as "што ти рече?" and mean "what did you say?" and not mean "what did he/she say to you"


This case is treated identically in both Bulgarian and Macedonian. 

Both meanings are possible. There is no means to specify the meaning in graphics. In speech, the intonation is to specify the meaning.

"what did *you* say?": "што *ти* рече?" Accent on *ти/you*. Unless accented, *ти *(you) should be omitted in this sence: personal pronouns are usually omitted in Nominative.

"*what* did he/she say to you": "*што* ти рече?" 

Other intonation patterns:

"*what* did you say?": "*што* рече (ти)?" (personal pronouns in Nominative is omitted if the context allows)
"*what* did he/she say?": "*што* рече (той/тя)?" (personal pronouns in Nominative is omitted if the context allows)
"what did he/she say *to you*": "*на тебе* што ти рече?", "што ти рече на тебе?" 



cr00mz said:


> Rekol and Imal, that is from the present perfect, no? Shouldn't it be;
> 
> _the man *has said* he has money _and _the man *has had* money
> _
> The man had money - čovekot imaše pari
> The man has had money - čovekot imal pari
> 
> The man said - čovekot reče
> The man has said - čovekot rekol
> 
> or am I wrong?



The clue here is that, in Bulgarian/Macedonian, the Aorist (рече) and the Imperfect (имаше) are not possible unless the speaker is a witness. Aorist and Imperfect are to be replaced by Renarrative mood otherwise: (рече => рекъл) and (имаше => имал).

Please also note that, unlike English, there is no concordance of tenses in Bulgarian/Macedonian/Slavic.


----------



## cr00mz

@Christo Tamarin

I am not sure if I understand your last sentence (concordance), but does it mean that If I use present perfect in english, I cannot directly translate it with present perfect in macedonian? (the same for imperfect etc.)

Also since renarrative is for things you are not a witness for. Is it used then for 3rd person singular and plural mostly?


----------



## cr00mz

Can you say човекот имал речено and still mean човекот рекол. I think they have the same meaning, no?


----------



## lordwings

cr00mz said:


> Can you say човекот имал речено and still mean човекот рекол. I think they have the same meaning, no?



The meaning is the same in Bulgarian, but it isn't often used there. However, I think it is used in Macedonian.




> Also since renarrative is for things you are not a witness for. Is it used then for 3rd person singular and plural mostly?



Yes, it is used mostly in third person, or when you ask someone about something concerning him but you are not sure it has happened. In 1st person it is used almost only as past perfect tense, unless when you ask for something about yourself, you can't remember.


----------



## cr00mz

Thanks for the reply, his witnessed/non-witnessed stuff is really tricky. 

Does anything change if you say слушнав дека човекот имаше пари. This is a word for word translation of the english, "I heard that the man had money". This is non-witnessed, but does it transfer the same meaning in Macedonian?


----------



## lordwings

You can say it if you can remember where or from who you have heard it otherwise you should use слушнал instead of слушнав.


----------



## Arath

lordwings said:


> You can say it if you can remember where or from who you have heard it otherwise you should use слушнал instead of слушнав.


I think your confusing the question, crOOmz is asking about the tense of "*има*" (*имаше*, *имал*).

"*Слушнав*" in Macedonians means "I heard" (*чух*), so if you replace it with "*слушнал*", you are changing not only the mood but also the subject:

"*Слушнал дека човекот имаше пари*." means "He reportedly heard that the man had money", but I'm not sure this sentence is correct, though.

In Bulgarian, technically, the sentence "*Чух, че човекът имаше пари*" is proscribed and it could be interpreted as something different "I heard the man having money" (literally heard, not in the sense that someone told me). I don't know what the sound of having money is.

It is proscribed because, in Bulgarian, when we use verbs of perception (seeing, hearing) and some other verbs, but let me not confuse you any more, we don't have tense agreement (heard - had) like in English. So in English, you would say:

*I saw that the vase was there* (saw/was) - both verbs refer to the past and both verbs are in the past tense.

In Bulgarian we would rather say:

*Видях, че вазата е там* (*I saw that the vase is there* - saw/is)  - both verbs refer to the past, but they are in different tenses.

"*Видях, че вазата беше там*" is possible, but proscribed, and it could be used in situations when you want to emphasize that the vase is no longer there. You saw it there some time ago, but it's not there now.

In Bulgarian you could either say "*Чух, че човекът има пари*", or "*Чух, че човекът имал пари*". They mean roughly the same thing. You should use the indicative mood (*има*), when you want to say that someone told you that the man had money and you believe them. You should use the renarrative mood, when you want to say that someone told you that the man had money, but you're not sure if that information is correct, it could be false. It's not you who's claiming that the man had money, it's someone else's claim.


----------



## lordwings

So, you say that in Macedonian "Слушнал дека човекот имаше пари." is rather understood as third personal sentence (Он е слушнал) than sentence in first person (Сум слушнал), it is the same in Bulgarian, but I haven't noticed it when I wrote the answer. So, the "сум" verb in respective person should not be omitted unles it is already known by the context.


----------



## Arath

One cannot not present when one does something, that is, one cannot not witness what one did, so the renarrative mood is used in first person only in very special cases, such as when one does not remember very well what one did (*Заспал съм и съм забравил да изключа лампата* - I fell asleep and I forgot to turn off the light), or when one relates someone else's words about oneself and one wishes to express one's disagreement with them (*Тя твърди, че съм ѝ (бил) откраднал книгата* - She claims that I stole her book, but I claim that that's not true). So I don't think that crOOmz is asking about the mood of "*слушнав*" but rather of "*имаше*".


----------



## cr00mz

I think that you have made me even more confused.

How can you say Видях, че вазата е там, if you are no longer at the place where the vase is? Perhaps it is no longer there.


----------



## Gnoj

cr00mz, what you're all dissecting now is advanced Macedonian and Bulgarian. Keeping at mind that verbs ending with -л (-ал, -ел, -ил, -ол) are non-witnessed and all the other verbs are witnessed is a good start. In the beginning you can even use the witnessed ones only, anyone will understand what you're saying, colloquial Macedonian isn't that strict. Just by using the language you'll be advancing and figuring out things on your own and grasping them more easily when explained by someone else.


----------



## cr00mz

Thanks everyone for the help, and yes, Gnoj I think you are right it is perhaps best to leave the more advanced things for a later time.


----------

