# Making nouns from verbs



## ancalimon

First of all, I hope I asked the question properly. 

In Turkish, xxx*mek* and xxx*mak* suffixes are the same as English "*to* xxx".

When it's only xxx*me* or xxx*ma*, it makes the verb definitive.

For example:
bil*me*: *the* knowing
bilme*me*: *the* not knowing.

Example in sentence:  *Bilmememe* neden oldun: You became the cause *to my not knowing.

*Bil: know
Bilme: not know , the knowing
bimeme: the not knowing
bilmemem: my not knowing
bilmememe: to my not knowing

As you can see "-me -ma suffix" is both the definite particle and when used twice on of them becomes the negator. It also means "do not"; for example "bil*me*! : do *not* know!"

Is it possible the create these kind of nouns from verbs like this in your language?


----------



## arielipi

That is the exact thing in hebrew; it even takes the same form as the 'present' participate of they/he/she
EDIT: It is for definitive of verb, not for negating; in general hebrew doesnt like the structure of suffixes/affixes/prefixes/etc and tends to keep words on their own.


----------



## lingpil

In German it's common to make a verb to a noun by the means of adding the definite neutrum article "das". It works with most verbs. But the meaning of such a noun can be somehow limited, though. 
wissen = to know; das Wissen = the knowledge ("usual" noun)
reisen = to travel; das Reisen = the travelling (the process of travelling - rather unusual; the voyage = die Reise)


----------



## Rallino

ancalimon said:


> Bil: know
> Bilme: not know , the knowing
> bimeme: the not knowing
> bilmemem: my not knowing
> bilmememe: to my not knowing
> 
> As you can see "-me -ma suffix" is both the definite particle and when used twice on of them becomes the negator. It also means "do not"; for example "bil*me*! : do *not* know!"



... which sometimes results in terrifying words such as: _ememememe_.
Here's an example sentence: _K__olundan yılanın zehrini *ememememe *__rağmen hayatta kaldın. _(You survived even though* I wasn't able to to suck* the serpent's venom out of your arm.)



> In German it's common to make a verb to a noun by the means of adding the definite neutrum article "das". It works with most verbs. But the meaning of such a noun can be somehow limited, though.
> wissen = to know; das Wissen = the knowledge ("usual" noun)
> reisen = to travel; das Reisen = the travelling (the process of travelling - rather unusual; the voyage = die Reise)



Thanks lingpil!
Any chance you could comment on patterns to make nouns in Russian?


----------



## lingpil

There is a chance, if you can take some risk.  
After a brief reflection it looks like there is a suffix (since Russian doesn't have articles) which can be used for this transformation. Most Russian verbs end in the infinitive with -ть. In at least some cases this suffix can be replaced with -ниe (niye) in order to make a noun.
знaть (znat') = to know; знaниe (znaniye) = the knowledge
cидeть (sidet') = to sit; cидeниe (sideniye) = the seat (like in a car or another mean of transport)
But there seem to be also exceptions where this rule doesn't work without some differences.
пyтeшecтвoвaть (puteshestvovat') = to travel; пyтeшecт*виe *(puteshestviye) = the voyage
Maybe there are some rules I don't know. All other Russian speakers can feel free to correct what I wrote above.


----------



## caelum

Rallino said:


> ... which sometimes results in terrifying words such as: _ememememe_.
> Here's an example sentence: _K__olundan yılanın zehrini *ememememe *__rağmen hayatta kaldın. _(You survived even though* I wasn't able to to suck* the serpent's venom out of your arm.)



That may be the best real word I have ever seen.


----------



## arielipi

Also in hebrew, the present participate form is sometimes also the actioner's name, for example:
רץ ratz run(ning), can also be sprinter.
הרץ can be:
1. the sprinter
2. [the one that is] the running.


----------



## ThomasK

lingpil said:


> In German it's common to make a verb to a noun by the means of adding the definite neutrum article "das". It works with most verbs. But the meaning of such a noun can be somehow limited, though.
> wissen = to know; das Wissen = the knowledge ("usual" noun)
> reisen = to travel; das Reisen = the travelling (the process of travelling - rather unusual; the voyage = die Reise)


Idem ditto in Dutch...


----------



## OneStroke

Chinese:
Take the verb directly and use it as a noun!

e.g. 跑步是強身健體的良方。　Running is a good way to make you stronger.

It does NOT work vice-versa, however:

e.g. *我每天都會運動運動. *I sport every day.


----------



## 810senior

*Japanese*:
We can easily makes the nouns by transforming the final vowel into -i or leaving a final syllable out. 

hikidas-u = to draw
hikidas-i = a drawer

koros-u = to kill, to eliminate
koros-i = murder, killing

shirab-eru = to search
shirab-e = searching, investigation

When you want to make the verbs from nouns, all you have to do is add a single syllable ru(this way is mostly used as the colloquial) as in サボるsabo-ru (sabo=sabotage, meaning to skip[the class/school etc.]), テンパるtempa-ru (tenpa(i)=a Majong term, meaning to be confused).


----------



## ger4

Some Estonian examples:

teadma = to know
--> teadus = science
--> teadmine = knowledge
--> teadlane = scientist

liikuma = to move
--> liikumine = movement

üürima = to investigate
--> üürimine = research (noun)

küsima = to ask
--> küsimus = question

rändama = to travel
--> rändur = traveller

laulma = to sing
--> laulja* = singer
--> lauljanna = (female) singer

lugema = to read
--> lugeja* = reader

kirjutama = to write
--> kirjanik = writer

* the -ja suffix in closely related Finnish is mentioned in this thread as well


----------



## Gavril

In Finnish, the most automatic way of making a verbal noun is to use the suffix -*minen*:

_ puhua_ "speak", _puhuminen_ "speaking, the act of speaking"


There are many other suffixes by which nouns are derived from verbs, but they are more variable than -_minen_ in their frequency, and they show more semantic divergence:
_
lahjoa_ ”to bribe” – _lahjo__*nta*_ ”bribery”

_toimia_ ”to function” – _toimi__*nto*_ ”function, operation”

_tulla_ ”come” – _tul__*o*_ ”coming, arrival”

_käyttää _”to use” – _käyt__*ös*_ ”behavior, conduct”

_pyhittää_ ”to sanctify” – _pyhit__*ys*_ ”sanctification”

_olettaa_ ”to assume” – _oletta__*mus*_ ”supposition, assumption”


----------



## Outsider

In Portuguese the infinitive form of a verb can act as a noun, for exemple *saber* = to know = knowledge. However this usage, while possible in principle for any verb, is ordinarily limited to a small number of verbs, or else tends to sound literary or even contrived.


----------



## ThomasK

I am beginning to wonder whether we are referring to the same thing. Turkish might be using a gerund, as in English, and that seems to be quite different from a regular noun: _thinking is good =/= a thought is good.. _I think the title ought to be 'Using verbs as nouns'. No?


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> I am beginning to wonder whether we are referring to the same thing. Turkish might be using a gerund, as in English, and that seems to be quite different from a regular noun: _thinking is good =/= a thought is good.. _I think the title ought to be 'Using verbs as nouns'. No?



"thinking is good" = "thought is good" =/= "*a* thought is good"

The difference as I see it is between a noun referring to the whole action or process ("thinking"/"thought") versus a noun referring to the conclusion or result of the action ("a thought"). The original question seemed to be asking about the first of these two kinds of noun, regardless of whether it is a gerund or a regular noun, but I may have misunderstood.


----------



## ThomasK

Good observation as for the 'a', but I am not sure the second sentence as such is OK, but I suppose you will know. However, _thought _is not the action, I'd say, more like the result. If you are right in saying that both thinking and 'thought' mean the same here, then you are right. 

But you can't always do that, I think: _I can't stand him doing that, _or - better maybe -_ I am ashamed about my not knowing (my lack of knowledge _is not quite the same to me...).


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> Good observation as for the 'a', but I am not sure the second sentence as such is OK, but I suppose you will know. However, _thought _is not the action, I'd say, more like the result.



The uncountable noun _thought_ (e.g., "Thought occurs in the mind") refers to the process, or at least that is one of its main meanings. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary has "the process of thinking" as its first definition of_ thought_.

However, _thought_ and _thinking_ are not completely interchangeable in every context: for example, you are much more likely to hear someone say "Thinking about the problem was difficult at first" than "Thought about the problem ...".

The difference might be the following: _thinking _can easily refer to specific instances of thought ("Thinking about this problem ..."), whereas _thought_ may be more commonly used in general statements ("Thought can be expressed with words"). The same may be true of many other pairs involving a gerund versus a less regular derived verbal noun.



> _I am ashamed about my not knowing (my lack of knowledge _is not quite the same to me...).



I don't see a difference between _my not knowing _and _my lack of knowledge_ here. But in general, _knowledge_ and _knowing_ may not be completely interchangeable.


----------



## 810senior

Outsider said:


> In Portuguese the infinitive form of a verb can act as a noun, for exemple *saber* = to know = knowledge. However this usage, while possible in principle for any verb, is ordinarily limited to a small number of verbs, or else tends to sound literary or even contrived.



I may say the same thing to French.
*pouvoir *= to be able = the power
*devoir *= to must = the homework


----------



## ThomasK

Gavril said:


> However, _thought_ and _thinking_ are not completely interchangeable in every context: for example, you are much more likely to hear someone say "Thinking about the problem was difficult at first" than "Thought about the problem ...".
> 
> The difference might be the following: _thinking _can easily refer to specific instances of thought ("Thinking about this problem ..."), whereas _thought_ may be more commonly used in general statements ("Thought can be expressed with words"). The same may be true of many other pairs involving a gerund versus a less regular derived verbal noun.
> 
> I don't see a difference between _my not knowing _and _my lack of knowledge_ here. But in general, _knowledge_ and _knowing_ may not be completely interchangeable.


 Thanks for the comments. I must admit then that 'thought' can refer to the process. 

I think you are raising  a very important point here: the use may be different, so that they are not completely interchangeable. I suppose that is what I was hinting at, or that I had a hunch about [_if that is correct_]: it is clear that the meanings are very similar, but they are used in a different way. I think that is not un-important, and that might be the difference between a gerund and a noun as well. QED, I'd say. Or what do you think?


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> Thanks for the comments. I must admit then that 'thought' can refer to the process.
> 
> I think you are raising  a very important point here: the use may be different, so that they are not completely interchangeable. I suppose that is what I was hinting at, or that I had a hunch about [_if that is correct_]: it is clear that the meanings are very similar, but they are used in a different way. I think that is not un-important, and that might be the difference between a gerund and a noun as well. QED, I'd say. Or what do you think?



This does seem to be a major difference between gerunds and other types of verbal nouns, at least in some languages (such as English): gerunds in English can be used to nominalize any given instance of the verb_ -- _for example, "It was difficult when I spoke to him" -> "Speaking to him was difficult for me"_ -- _whereas other types of verbal nouns are usually not as flexible, either because their meaning has diverged, or because they are simply not used as frequently. For example, the sentence "I found speech to him difficult" is theoretically synonymous with "I found speaking to him difficult", but no one would utter the first sentence because the noun _speech_ tends to be reserved for general statements about speaking ("Speech is a human capability") or for a specific type of speaking ("He made a speech to the audience").

This is why I think it makes sense to call a gerund the "default" verbal noun (though there need not be only one gerund per verb in a language), as contrasted with other, more lexicalized verbal nouns ("lexicalized", because their meaning is not as strongly tied to the original verb: e.g. for example, many people wouldn't immediately realize that the noun _strife_ is based on the verb_ strive_).


----------



## Sempervirens

ancalimon said:


> First of all, I hope I asked the question properly.
> 
> In Turkish, xxx*mek* and xxx*mak* suffixes are the same as English "*to* xxx".
> 
> When it's only xxx*me* or xxx*ma*, it makes the verb definitive.
> 
> For example:
> bil*me*: *the* knowing
> bilme*me*: *the* not knowing.
> 
> Example in sentence:  *Bilmememe* neden oldun: You became the cause *to my not knowing.
> 
> *Bil: know
> Bilme: not know , the knowing
> bimeme: the not knowing
> bilmemem: my not knowing
> bilmememe: to my not knowing
> 
> As you can see "-me -ma suffix" is both the definite particle and when used twice on of them becomes the negator. It also means "do not"; for example "bil*me*! : do *not* know!"
> 
> Is it possible the create these kind of nouns from verbs like this in your language?



Ciao! A titolo di cuirosità ti rimando a questi collegamenti: 

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/nomi-deverbali_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ In italiano.

http://italian.about.com/od/linguistics/a/suffixation-italian-verb-noun.htm  Per coloro che hanno maggiore facilità a leggere le parole in lingua inglese.

S.V


----------



## 123xyz

Macedonian:

Nouns may be derived regularly from all imperfective verbs (expect the verb "to be") with the addition of the suffix "-Vње", where the vowel depends on the class of the verb:

коп*а* - коп*ање*
влеч*е* - влеч*ење*
молч*и* - молч*ење*

These nouns are in essence gerunds, and correspond to English "-ing" nouns, or alternatively Turkish "-me/ma" nouns. They are also used in some places where English or Turkish would use an infinitive in the capacity of a noun, since Macedonian lacks an infinitive form.

As for the perfective verbs, there is no regular gerund noun-formation pattern for them, because gerunds generally imply continuity, it seems, whereas perfective verbs are certainly not continuous. So, to form nouns with terminative/instantaneous meanings, verbs use a variety of suffixes (in addition to other types of alterations), but these are not gerunds. They are regular nouns, like English nouns ending with "-ation", "-ence", "-hood", "-ness", etc.


----------



## mataripis

Not in Tagalog. Know- alam/ don't know- di alam or di batid/ the not knowing- kawalan ng kabatiran/my not knowing- kamangmangan ko./to my not knowing- sa kamangmangan ko.


----------



## apmoy70

Modern Greek forms deverbative nouns without a special pattern unfortunately, e.g:
*«Απελπίζω»* [apelˈpizo] --> _to despair_ > *«απελπισία»* [apelpiˈsi.] (fem.) --> _despair (noun)_
*«Εγκλείω»* [eŋgˈlio] --> _to confine, encarcerate_ > *«εγκλεισμός»* [eŋglizˈmos] (masc.) --> _confinement, encarceration_
*«Σύρω»* [ˈsiɾo] --> _to draw, trail_ > *«σύρμα»* [ˈsirma] (neut.) --> _wire_.
The pattern is unpredictable, as arbitrary is the gender of the derived noun.
However...
The ancient articular infinitive (which played the role of a verbal noun in Classical Gr or expressed a substantive idea) has been replaced by a specific construction in the modern language which is formed by the articular imperfective aspect of the verb + neut. suffix *«-ιμο»* [-imo] < Classical suffix *«-ιμος, -ιμη, -ιμον» -imŏs* (masc.), *-imē* (fem.), *-imŏn* (neut.) < PIE *-mos, _forms action nouns from verbs_ (in the ancient Greek language the suffix «-ιμος, -ιμη, -ιμον» was mostly used to form adjectives of possibility or capability).
So, in the modern language:
Classical Gr articular inf. *«τὸ γράφειν» tò grắpʰe̯in* --> _the idea/concept of writing_ > MoGr perfective stem *«γραφ-»* [ɣraf-] > MoGr imperfective stem *«γραψ-»* [ɣrap͡s-] > *«το γράψιμο»* [to ˈɣrap͡simo] (neut. noun) --> _the concept of writing_.
Classical Gr articular inf. *«τὸ σφάζειν» tò spʰắze̯in* --> _the act of slaughtering, sacrificial killing_ > MoGr perfective stem *«σφαζ-»* [sfaz-] > MoGr imperfective stem *«σφαξ-»* [sfak͡s-] > *«το σφάξιμο»* [to ˈsfak͡simo] --> _the act of butchering_.

Note that in Classical Gr the neuter article may appear in all case forms bar the vocative (while the infinitive remains indeclinable), e.g *«τοῦ γράφειν» toû *(=neut. definite article in genitive)* grắpʰe̯in* --> _of the concept of writing_, in MoGr on the other hand, the verbal noun is a fully declinable noun: *«του γραψ-ίματος* [tu ɣraˈp͡simatos] --> _of the concept of writing_.


----------



## ilocas2

In Czech nouns from verbs are formed with *-ní* or *-tí*

f.e.
číst - čtení
pít - pití
psát - psaní
šít - šití
vrčet - vrčení
telefonovat - telefonování
sít - setí
etc. - all verbs

there are also other nouns
číst - četba
chodit - chůze
jezdit - jízda
hodit - hod
vřískat - vřískot
křičet - křik
sít - setba
etc.


----------



## Dymn

Just like other Romance languages, in Catalan and Spanish the use of the infinitive form as a plain noun is limited and rather formal if used _ad hoc_. I add to Outsider and 810senior examples:

"to know": _saber _pt, es, ca; _savoir _fr; "knowledge"
"to owe": _dever _pt, _deber _es, _deure _ca, _devoir _fr; "duty, homework"
"to be able to": _poder _pt, es, ca; _pouvoir _fr; "power"

It must be noted that these nouns are always masculine. I think this is the scope of the thread, but I'll go further.

The conversion from verbs to nouns is usually made with various prefixes, which are cognate of English _-ment _(nowadays the most productive I'd say), _-tion,_ _-age _or _-ance/-ence_. Other mechanisms include the use of the past participle (mainly in the feminine form), or simply a zero-form (i.e. no suffix at all), using a typical ending vowel (e.g. in Spanish _queja _"complaint", _despegue _"take off", _pago _"payment").

Sometimes the same root is given different suffixes in different languages:

"thought": _pensamento _pt, _pensamiento _es, _pensament _ca / _pensée_ fr / _pensiero _it
"birth": _nascimento _pt, _nacimiento _es, _naixement _ca / _naissance _fr / _nascita _it
"abortion": _aborto _pt, es, it / _avortament _ca, _avortement _fr
"knowledge": _conhecimento _pt, _conocimiento _es, _coneixement _ca / _connaissance _fr, _conoscenza _it
"suffering": _sofrimento _pt, _sufrimiento _es, _sofriment _ca / _souffrance _fr, _sofferenza _it
"insurance": _seguro _pt, es / _assegurança _ca, _assurance _fr / _assicurazione _it
"discovery": _descoberta _pt, _découverte _fr, _scoperta _it / _descubrimiento _es, _descobriment _ca
"conversation": _conversa _pt, ca / _conversación _es, _conversation _fr, _conversazione _it
etc...

Note that other forms with different suffixes may exist, but are less common or have a more restricted meaning.


----------

