Talk:náhásdzo

"zone"
How can "zone" be a verb? 71.66.97.228 04:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In English, it can’t be. In Navajo, it can be used not only as a verb but as an adjective. It means that the Navajo word is a verb, not that the English meaning is a verb. Related to (and similar to) hahoodzo. —Stephen (Talk) 07:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a brief usage note similar to the way the definition of hahoodzo is presented, indicating that the "zone" usage is a "by extension" usage, would be helpful for English readers encountering this entry. 71.66.97.228 03:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_action_loopnone.png|15px]] A "zone" is certainly a noun. If  can be used as the agent or patient (subject or object) of another verb, then it is being used as a noun, albeit a noun derived from a verb: a deverbalized noun.  Same for.
 * Díí náhásdzo éí áníłtso -- if this is valid Navajo, then náhásdzo here is grammatically a noun.
 * Yootó hahoodzo éí áníłtso -- if this is valid Navajo, then hahoodzo here is grammatically a noun.
 * -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they’re just verbs, including grammatically. I think you’re translating them in you head as nouns and that’s why they seem like nouns to you. A bit like saying: "Around here, put up or shut up can get you killed." The phrase "put up or shut up" is grammatically a noun, but "put up" and "shut up" are still just verbs. While a "zone" is a noun in English, it is not a literal definition of the Navajo word, but merely a common translation of it. —Stephen (Talk) 03:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the common trap of translating in one's head, and I've had fun trying to explain that to other English speakers regarding Japanese, and to other Japanese speakers regarding English, but I really don't think that's what's going on here. :)  To pare it down to the bare minimum, if náhásdzo éí áníłtso is valid Navajo, there's nothing there to act as the antecedent for éí or the subject of áníłtso except náhásdzo, meaning that náhásdzo in this context is acting as a noun.
 * I'm certainly open to the possibility that this is not valid Navajo and that I'm missing a nominalizing -í on the end. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t see any reason why díí and éí should not be able to refer to a verb. As I have said many times, there is too much emphasis here on parts of speech because it is an important feature of Indo-European and some other languages, but but not so for many languages. In languages where almost all "words" are technically verbs, the verbs can be quite agile and can mimick what we think of as other parts of speech. Some of the languages (such as Ojibwe) often employ special prefixes or suffixes to mark the verb in these various roles, but others, like Navajo, aren’t so finicky about marking them and may just use positioning or other particles like díí and éí to help with this. In the translations of these utterances into English, we have to assign parts of speech, but in Navajo I think náhásdzo is just an ordinary verb, not a noun. This is why I have so often said that we should not be using particularizing headers such as parts of speech, but generic headers like Russian wiktionary does. There, all words regardless of PoS goes under the 3-L heading of "Semantic properties". —Stephen (Talk) 07:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, reading that, a lightbulb went on in my head, and now I think I understand better where you're coming from.
 * I think you're coming at it too much from the Navajo-language side of things. EN WT is intended for English readers, and as such needs to explain and label things as appropriate for an English reader.  The term  may be a verb, but if I understand the usage correctly, it is also used in a way that, for purposes of description in English, equates to a noun.  The Japanese term  is a stative verb, but for purposes of description in English, the entry here on WT appropriately labels two POSes, one as an adjective and one as an interjection.
 * Deverbalized nouns are not uncommon, in either English or Navajo. Take, for instance -- one can have a run of good or bad luck, or a run in one's stocking, both noun usages of what is generally a verb.  Or take  or , both third-person singular verb forms that are used as nouns.  I would argue that  (as I currently understand the term) is a similar word, to wit, a verb form that is also used as a noun.  -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Imperfective?
That middle "s" looks like the si-perfective marker. Is really imperfective? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is the si-perfective marker. is a verb that means "the area is encircled by a line", or "the area has a boundary". —Stephen (Talk) 10:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)