Talk:houbelec

Part of speech

I think uses like "víš o tom houbelec" or "je to houbeles platné" suggest a noun, but I admit that it is open to interpretation. Curiously, if one replaces "houbelec" with "málo", that would suggest adverb as per "málo", but when one replaces that with "nic" that suggests pronoun per nic, although dictionaries also report "nic" as an adverb. What feature of the use of the word would make this an adverb? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Some analysis suggesting a noun use:

• Mám doma krabici hraček. Mám doma (koho co). Co máš doma?
• Vím o tom houbelec (or prdlačku). Vím o tom (koho co). Co o tom víš?

The above allows an analogy, it seems, but I am not sure. In the 2nd use, the word prdlačka is inflected as a noun.

As for the word morphology, houbelec looks like a masculine noun (like e.g. krmelec or kotrmelec), although its inflection is largely unattested.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that it expresses how much of something is done, is happening and so on, so it should be na adverb. Better question than "Co o tom víš?" is "Kolik toho o tom víš?". If you look at the examples at the PSJC scans for houbeles houbelec and houby, you will see there, that they are mostly labeled there as adverbs. The only thing which puzzles me are the labels on the scans of examples of the expression hovno, which say that it is noun, although the constructions are very similar. Compare houby věděl (labeled as adverb), hovno rozumíte (labeled as noun) and hovno se starám (labeled as adverb). So it seems that different linguists have different opinions on that and I do not think that we are the right people to solve it. Therefore I would keep houby, houbeles and houbelec as adverbs and "hovno" as a noun, because these labels seem to prevail with these expressions. Maybe we can also add there some note saying that some linguists consider it to be the other part of speech. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed their labeling, but I am unimpressed, especially since they did not provide any reasoning supporting the labeling, and the inconsistency with their labeling of "hovno" is suspect. From what I can see, my question "What feature of the use of the word would make this an adverb?" remains unanswered. As for "Kolik toho o tom víš?", I would not consider "houbelec" to be a fitting answer to the question (a mere feeling), whereas it feels to be a fitting answer to "Co o tom víš". Even if "Kolik toho o tom víš?" would be the applicable question, I do not see what makes an answer to it an adverb: Kolik máš peněz? Čtyři koruny. Kolik tam bylo lidí? Žádní. Moreover, google:"Kolik toho o tom víš" and google:"co o tom víš" suggest the former is very rare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, SSJC bela has "stará bela" as meaning "nic", without indicating a different part of speech; similarly SSJC prdlačka. In "houbelec", the possible inflection cannot be seen since the accusative would be the same as the nominative, as in "krmelec". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, "kulový" playing this role in "ví kulový" can be modified by "velký" as in "mám velký kulový", and modification by adjectives is typical of nouns. This can be also seen for "houbelec", although very rarely, as in "úplnej houbelec", where houbelec is modified by an adjective in a manner indicating houbelec is masculine. An actual example of use is in "víme úplnej houbelec" in Malý velký svět, by Rudolf Kadeřábek, 1989[1], but Google does not find it when searching for "úplnej houbelec". --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adverbs modify a verb ("Oni houbelec vědí"), which nouns can never do. The so called adverbs of degree express e.g. degree, amount, level of certainty. It seems very unnatural to consider the word houby in the sentence "na tom houby záleží" to be a noun. That is simply impossible.

However, you made a really good point with "úplnej houbelec". Here it is a clear noun without any doubt. It is quite common that the same expression can function in different sentences as a different part of speech. I would even say that there are even other possibilities, such as interjection (John: I passed the exam! Jack: Houbelec!).

So, would you agree with mentioning both (maybe all 3?) possibilities with different examples? Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Now I see that I misunderstood the labels on the "hovno" scans. The abbreviation "n." probably does not stand for "noun" (because they usually use "s." for "substantivum" in this sense). It stands for "neutrum", similarly as "m." stands for "masculinum" on the scans of another similar expression. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, "n." stands for neuter. They provide "f." at kočka and "m." at pes. Nonetheless, when a gender is indicated, it suggests something else than an adverb since adverbs do not have gender. Let me note that most of the uses of "hovno" on these cards are clear noun uses, like "stojí to všechno za hovno"; an adverbial use they have is "Tak vidíte Švejku, že vám to hovno pomohlo." --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still thinking also about the examples "mám kulový" and "mám velký kulový". I think that in such cases the expression is on the verge of functioning as an adverb or a noun, and deciding which function it is in every individual case depends on that whether the characteristics of adverb or of noun prevail. The word "kulový" can be modified not only by adjective "velký", but also by some adverbs: "mám skoro kulový", "dostal téměř kulový". And adverbs can modify other adverbs, but cannot modify nouns. Because "mám kulový" can be replaced e. g. by "mám málo", it seems that it tends to express some quantity or degree, and not to name something. So in this sentence the characteristics of adverb prevail (and when it is modified by téměř/skoro, it is an adverb without any doubt). However, when it is modified by the adjective "velký", it gets the characteristics of a noun (adjectives modify nouns and as a result the expression "kulový" cannot be replaced e. g. by "málo" in the phrase "mám velký kulový"). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Mám velký kulový" is not an adverbial use by any stretch. Furthermore, it is questionable that "málo" is an adverb in sentence "Mám málo."; consider "spokojím se s málem" where "málo" looks like an inflected noun or pronoun, or "bez mála".

In "Oni houbelec vědí", it is not obvious that houbelec modifies "vědí" rather than being the complement of "vědí", like when in "Houbelec máme", "houbelec" is a complement of "máme". Uses that look most unequivocally adverbial to me include "Houbelec tomu rozumíš" (or "houby tomu rozumíš"), "na tom houby záleží", and "je to houby platný". It seems to me that uses of "houby" and "houbelec" as for the position in a sentence mirror the uses of "nic", that is, as a pronoun, where the syntactic role is nearly identical to that of a noun, as in "nevíme o tom nic" or "nemáme nic", and as an adverb, as in "nebylo to nic platný". "nic" differs from "houby", "houbelec" and the like in that it uses the double negative: "nemáme nic" vs. "máme kulový".

Therefore, as per above, I acknowledge existence of uses that appear rather adverbial, although I differ about classification of particular cases. I am not sure I would like to create two part of speech sections because of that. The uses actually seem to correspond to what some modern English grammars call "determiner". To do the best service to the reader, we should eventually provide example sentences showing various uses with varying grammar, and maybe a usage note. Having two part of speech sections does not solve the problem of uses that are amphibious, as it were, whereas a usage note can do a good job for these cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If we tried to solve it in a usage note, it would mean that we would have to decide what the heading of the section would be: noun x adverb x interjection. Dividing it into separate sections solves it. I also do not think that it mirrors a position of a pronoun in sentences, it can be said that it mirrors a position of other adverbs as well: "Na tom houbelec záleží" x "Na tom málo/dost/hodně/velmi záleží"; or "Víme o tom houbelec" x "Víme o tom málo/hodně/dost".

Therefore I suggest to have separate sections for the 2 or 3 (including interjection) parts of speech where we can add such example sentences where it is clear. If there are still some examples where we cannot find a clear solution, we can mention them in a usage note (and continue discussion about them if needed). Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you'll also need an adjective section, for "žádný pořádný", in uses like "to je houby gól". You'll have noun, adverb, adjective, and interjection. And for all these, the lists of synonyms will be nearly identical. This will be the result of the failure of recognize that there is such a thing as a noun that acts as a determiner. The noun origin is clear with hovno, houby, prd, stará bela, prdlačka, etc., and perhaps less clear with houbelec. Since the apparent nounhood is so clear to the users, they sometimes modify these by adjectives. As the user of the dictionary, I would be disappointed with such a presentation, no less when I was when I saw two sections in this revision of kamenný, a split that no dictionaries I know of do. (The interjection is rather a proto-sentence, but en wikt does often classify such uses as interjections.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A correction: I did not say it mirrors positions of a pronoun; I said it mirrors positions of nic; "nic" has adverbial uses as well, as in "nic platný", as acknowledged by e.g. SSJC[2]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need a section for the adjective as well. The synonyms are mostly identical if we talk about those derived from "hovno" (houby, houbeles, houbičky) and maybe some other colloquial expressions (which is not wrong; there can be a similar list of synonyms in different sections), but there are important differences in the standard Czech equivalents: Ty tomu houby/málo rozumíš. Ty jsi houby/špatný řidič.

Acknowledging it as a determiner (which is something typical e. g. for the English language but not widely acknowledged in the Czech grammar) in some cases would not solve much anyway. It definitely cannot be a determiner in sentences like: "Ty tomu houby rozumíš" (typical adverb) or "A: Vyhrál jsem první cenu! B: Houby!!" (clear interjection). As the user of the dictionary, I would be really pleased with such a presentation, which would show me that the word functions in different sentences as a different part of speech. The same applies to the split of the meanings of kamenný, but that is a different story which does not belong here. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the adverb meaning to the entry houbelec just to show what it can look like. I will wait for the result of the discussion with other parts of speech and with other entries of the same kind. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Translation

I disagree with your addition of adverb, but I won't revert. "You little understand it" is not English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I corrected it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Google is your friend: google:"You don't understand it very much" finds close to nothing, as does google books:"don't understand it very much". google books:"You don't understand it at all" is a better guess but does not have that colloquial flavor of the Czech phrase. google books:"you don't understand shit" may be too vulgar but I don't know. Perhaps a native speaker will help us. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "you don't understand shit" is too vulgar, if I should choose between neutral translation (with a note that the original is colloquial) and a translation that exaggerates the original colloquiality, I would prefer the first choice. What about "You don't understand it much"? This version without "very" gives more google hits. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

google books:"you don't understand it much" gives 6 hits in total: not good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if the frequency in books is a good measure for colloquial phrases. The whole Internet is a better measure in that case, I think. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have asked native speakers at Beer parlour for help. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about this much before, but almost all the expressions that come to mind are in the negative:

You don't understand it [at all/shit] => understanding is zero to very low

You don't understand it very well => understanding is moderate-to-little

You don't understand [much, anything, a lot] about it (various degrees)

He little understood what was happening to him is OK in literary English, but not in dialog.

HTH. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Using little: You understand very little about it is a bit formal. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest "you hardly understand it (at all)" or "you barely understand it (at all)", but I don't know the source language so I have no idea of any nuances. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, in my opinion: "you don't understand it very much" is somehow unidiomatic: it seems to suggest that time is passing (compare: "you don't eat apples very often"). Equinox ◑ 23:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)