# Latvian: Dāvāja Māriņa meitiņai mūžiņu



## Flaminius

Dear Latvian speakers on this forum,

Could I get help with translating the song, composed by Raimonds Pauls?  I have managed my ways through the first two stanzas and the refrain but the third stanza is hardly possible for me to translate.  Here is the part of the lyric from a lyric list.

1. Kā aizmirsies, aizmirsies
2. Man viss jau dienu rūpestos!
3. Līdz piepeši, piepeši
4. No pārsteiguma satrūkstos,

I recognise some words including _aizmirsies_ (feminine p.p. for reflexive "forget"), _dienu _(genitive plural of "day") and dzirdu (1st sg. past? of "hear") but have difficulty in putting together what few words I understand.

Any hints are appreciated.
Flaminius


----------



## karuna

I can try to give a verbatim translation to this. It is above my head to provide any poetic translation but I guess the meaning will become clear. If you still need more help, let me know.

1. Kā aizmirsies, aizmirsies
How was forgotten, forgotten
2. Man viss jau dienu rūpestos!
By me everything in days' worries
3. Līdz piepeši, piepeši
Until sudenly, sudenly
4. No pārsteiguma satrūkstos,
From surprise [I become] startled

Actually I also couldn't understand the meaning of this excerpt very well without the context.

Jo dzirdu es, dzirdu es,
Because I hear, I hear
Kā pati savā nodabā
How herself on her own
Čukst klusiņām, klusiņām
Wisper softly, softly
Jau mana meita smaidot tā:
Already my daughter smiling thus:

Tā gāja laiks, gāja laiks,
Thus the time went, the time went
Un nu jau mātes līdzās nav. 
And already the mother is not by her side.
Vien pašai man, pašai man
just me myself, me myself
Ar visu jātiek galā jau,
With everything must deal already
Bet brīžos tais, brīžos tais,
But in those moments, in those moments
Kad sirds smeldz sāpju rūgtumā,
When the heart aches in pains' sorrow
Es pati sev, pati sev,
I to myself, to myself
Tad pasmējusies saku tā:
Then, having laughed, tell thus:


----------



## Flaminius

Karuna, ļoti paldies!  I have almost given up on getting an answer on this forum.  Welcome to WordReference and thank you again.

I would like to clarify the following line:


			
				karuna said:
			
		

> Un nu jau mātes līdzās nav.
> And already the mother is not by her side.



I understand "mātes līdzās" is literally mother's side, mother standing in genitive (of) and side in nominative (subject case).  I first thought the line meant, "I am not at mother's side" but the third person present negative of _būt_ (nav) makes that interpretation impossible.

Could you advise what is the subject and what it is doing (or not doing)?


----------



## karuna

Flaminius said:
			
		

> I understand "mātes līdzās" is literally mother's side, mother standing in genitive (of) and side in nominative (subject case).  I first thought the line meant, "I am not at mother's side" but the third person present negative of _būt_ (nav) makes that interpretation impossible.



Although _līdzās _means _by side, _it is not a noun but pre/postposition that takes a noun in dative case. Here the pronoun (1st person) is implied[_*man*_]_ līdzās - by *my* side.

_The subject is _mātes _which is in genitive because of the negative verb _nav. _I have never thought about the grammar of my native language and I am surprised that the subject can be in genitive but there is no doubt about it. Such _genitive _+ _nav _constructions are very popular: _man nav naudas — I don't have money [me doesn't exist money]. _

I hope this helps. Have to run now...


----------



## Flaminius

Tu esi lieliska, Karuna!  Just to confirm, on what conditions does _genitive _+ _nav _construction come into use?  I realise your second example, "man nav naudas" marks the subject by dative (for me, cash does not exist).  Is _genitive _+ _nav _construction called for when the subject is a noun, and dative construction when the subject is a pronoun?


----------



## karuna

Flaminius said:
			
		

> Tu esi lieliska, Karuna!  Just to confirm, on what conditions does _genitive _+ _nav _construction come into use?  I realise your second example, "man nav naudas" marks the subject by dative (for me, cash does not exist).  Is _genitive _+ _nav _construction called for when the subject is a noun, and dative construction when the subject is a pronoun?


Hmm. A very difficult question  Even some native speakers will use nominative case in the above mentioned example instead of genitive. It seems different in some dialects, but for me, coming from Cēsis rajons where the middle dialect is spoken, nominative simply doesn't sound right.  However, the genitive usage here is not governed by an object in dative at all. My grammar book _Latviešu valodas praktiskā gramatika _by B. Ceplīte says:



> 13. Tas, no kā izriet darbības vārda nosauktā darbība, stāvoklis (pieverba subjekta ģenitīvs). Šādā nozīmē ģenitīvs lietojams saistījumā ar darbības vārdiem _nebūt, trūkt, netrūkt, pietikt, nepietikt: nav sniega; trūkst drosmes; netrūkst izejvielu; pietiek līdzekļu; nepietiek spēka.
> _


 I don't really understand what this clever definition means but it can be roughly translated as: _That from which arises the action or state indicated by the verb (???). In this meaning the genitive is used when connecting with the following verbs: to not be, to be lacking, to __not be lacking, to be enough, to not be enough.

_Most interesting thing here is that while genitive is used with both _trūkt _and _netrūkt, _it isonly used with the negative verb _nebūt: zēns *ir *skolā (the boy (nominative) *is *at school), _whereas: _nē, zēna skolā *nav!* (no, the boy (genitive) *is not *at school! – *nav*_ _comes at end for emphasis). _Though it doesn't apply when the verb _nebūt _is used predicatively: _skola *nav* liela (the school *is not *big). _

By the way, Flaminius, are you studying Latvian? It must be very interesting thing to do.


----------

