Adverbial Puns

I realized a similarity between the adverbial suffixes of -wise and -mente.

For example, slow-wise would mean "slowly, in a slow manner". It uses the adverbial suffix -wise. It derives from Proto-Germanic *wīsaz (“wise, skilled, knowledgeable”).

And for example, the Italian word lentamente would also means "slowly, in a slow manner". The word uses the adverbial suffix -mente. It dervies from Latin mente ("by mind"), the singular ablative of mens ("mind").

So yea, the similarity between them is that they both refer to wisdom or mind and both are used adverbially. >!(Pun intended)!<

Hola a tots. Sóc aprenent nova de català, i estic ensenyat a mi mateixa. Perquè sé parlar espanyol, no he tingut cap problema amb els altros pronoms, però no puc entendre quan utilizar els pronoms "en" i "hi". A més, no puc trobar recursos en línia que ho explica. Algú pot explicar-me com utilizar-los?

Sisplau, si he comès errors, corregiu-me. Agraeixo l'oportunitat per aprendre.

I read that adverbials can't be placed behind a verb and infront a object, but what about for example: The decorators painted JUST the kitchen. In this sentence the adverbial is between the object and verbal, someting I read shouldn't be a thing...

Les vikings en seront quitte pour contourner Paris par la terre ferme en tirant leurs bateaux

et l'empereur finira d'y pendre toute crédibilité.

1. The ball is deeply in the well.
2. She is still a good teacher.
3. I was in my room when you called me.

I know that adverbs and adverbial clauses can modify verbs, but I'm not sure whether they can grammatically modify be-verbs like "is" as in sentences 1, 2, 3.

So, my question is, in sentences 1, 2, 3, do the adverbs "deeply" and "still" and the adverbial clause "when you called me" modify the verb "is" ?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, I need some grammar wizard for this. I'm writing an essay on Portuguese grammar but there's one bit that Ive been stuck on.

Im explaining how a locução adverbial can be used to describe nouns. And I emailed Ciberduvidas* with the same question and I know now that they can describe nouns because they are modificadores restritivos. The question I have, and which Ive been thinking about for about a day, is how a Locução adverbial can be considered a modificadores restritivo because Im not sure which of the listed criteria they fall under, namely:

>Os elementos que podem funcionar como modificadores restritivos do nome podem ser grupos adjectivais (ii), grupos preposicionais (iii) ou orações subordinadas adjectivas (iv).

Because it doesnt mention "locução adverbial" in that list, so I suppose it has to be one of the other ones.

>*As locuções adverbiais podem ser empregadas para modificar nomes (substantivos), isto é, podem funcionar como modificadores restritivos, tal como acontece mais geralmente com os adjetivos.
>
>Como se lê, por exemplo, no Dicionário Terminológico, documento de apoio ao ensino da gramática no ensino não superior em Portugal:
>
>«[...] Os elementos que podem funcionar como modificadores restritivos do nome podem ser grupos adjectivais (ii), grupos preposicionais (iii) ou orações subordinadas adjectivas (iv).
>
>Exemplos:
>
>[...]
>
>(ii) Adoro [flores [frescas e coloridas]].
>
>(iii) [O rapaz [de barba]] é meu aluno.
>
>(iv) [Os lobos [que vivem no Parque Peneda-Gerês]] estão em vias de extinção.» (https://dt.dge.mec.pt/index.php?id=n305)

Currently studying English as a foreign student and it's my first time learning linguistics and sadly I ran onto a problem. I have to find the object complement, adverbial and direct object. I think I found 2 but struggle to find the adverbial.

"Put my name on the waiting list"

This sentence. I know that "my name" is direct object and "on the waiting list" is object complement. However, I think "on the waiting list" is adverbial too but I'm not so sure, and if that is the case is it possible for "on the waiting list to be both adverbial and object complement?

Preface: I'm not very good at constructing wholly abstract sentences yet, so please try to excuse any erroneous errors.

So I've noticed that time adverbials are almost always fronted (knew this to an extent already), and conjunctive adverbials lay in the middle of the clause.

TA - "[Sent i går kveld] hadde tyven brutt seg inn i et ensomt herskapshus for å tyv den ny skulpturen"

• [Late last night], the thief broke into a secluded mansion to steal that new sculpture.

CA - "Tyven forlatte huset og løpte [skjønt] til bilen sin da han sett vakthundene omringer og vakter skulpturen"

•[Though] the thief hurriedly ran out of the house and to his car when he saw the guard dogs surrounding and guarding the sculpture.

Is this syntax common in speech too?

Preparing for my B1 test, l came across the concept of adverbial conjunctions. What is confusing to me is that some words, with damit being the prime example, can serve as subordinating or adverbial conjunctions. I'm struggling to understand (or even to find good examples) when to treat such words in which way. Could someone please explain this to me? Thanks!

I'm learning how to use the adverbial participle (ending in -va/-ve) and going through some practice questions in my munkafüzet. I did most of them alright, but two are giving me trouble.

Here is an example of the first task:

1. A kutya hangosan ugat. A kutya védi a házat. = A kutya hangosan ugatva védi a házat.

You see, basically I turn two clauses into one.

I did this 9 more times on other practice questions, until I came to this one:

> Otthon is lehet gyakorolni a nyelvtant. A nyelvtant az órán tanultuk meg. -

I'm not exactly sure how to do this one. The potential verb lehet is confusting me. There's surely not lehetve or something, right?

The other questions were structured like this:

> Már kifizették az ebédet. = Az ebéd ki van fizetve.

So basically I turn passive constructions into adverbial participles. Again, I got through most of them alright, until I got to this one:

> Még soha nem rúgtak ki egy munkahelyemről sem. -

I'm kind of confused by this one. I'm not suppose to say 'Még soha nem vagyok rúgva...' or something like that, right?

Estimados correctores y estudiantes de español, estaba leyendo sobre la palabra "solo" (porque soy un tipo chévere al que le gusta leer sobre las cosas tan interesantes y emocionantes como la gramática y la ortografía 🤣) y leí algo que me pareció verdaderamente interesante. Desde el año 2010, la RAE dice que no hay que ponerle tilde a esa palabra. ¡Nunca! Ni siquiera en el caso de que sea adverbio. A mí me han corregido esa palabra, cambiando mi "solo" adverbial por "sólo", y sé que se la corrigen a otros escritores a veces. Por eso me pareció interesante leer que, de hecho, nunca se considera una falta de ortografía escribir "solo" sin tilde y, por ende, no se debería corregirla. (Sin embargo, se puede escribirla con tilde si se quiere, pero no es obligatorio ni preferido por la RAE.)

Fuente: https://www.rae.es/espanol-al-dia/el-adverbio-solo-y-los-pronombres-demostrativos-sin-tilde

For example, in English there is "I bought a dress with my friend at the mall yesterday" where the sequence is manner-place-time, while in Russian it is time-place-manner, in Mandarin it is time-manner-place, though the sequence is usually adjustable. I am not totally sure about the most usual sequence in the three languages, but there are indeed differences.

To what extent is the sequence universal? To what extent is the sequence language-specific? What are some researches about the topic?

So for example if I want to say: "I'll bring a couple of beers then" how would I say this in German? "Ich bringe denn ein paar Biere mit" or more like "Also bringe ich ein paar Biere mit" ?

I know we can use denn to explain causal relationships between two clauses (like one would use weil) and also to add strength to a question ("Und was hast du denn danach entescheiden?"). Does it also make sense to use it in the same context of the sentence on top (similar to English). Please let me know Leute this is kind of driving me crazy right now. Danke Euch :D

The neutral structure order of a Welsh sentence is : Verb - Subject - Object - Adverb.

The adverbial element (it's often a phrase, not just a single word) can be moved in the sentence to convey changes in emphasis. When the adverbial is fronted it is emphasised. Some adverbials like to come after the subject or straight after a verb-noun. When the position of the adverbial is more unusual, disrupting the normal word order and forming a parenthetical insertion (a digression) to the sentence, it is followed by a soft mutation. This insertion is called a sangiad in Welsh.

Sangiadau ...

Between the verb and the subject after mae / oes / does:

>Mae gen i gi - I have a dog
>
>Mae (y)na gi wrth y drws - There's a dog by the door.
>
>Mae yn y dref lawer o bobl - There are a lot of people in town.
>
>Oes hefyd ddiod ar ôl? - Is there also (some) drink left?
>
>Does nawr ddim bwyd ar ôl - There's no food left now.
>
>Roedd eisioes bobl yna. - There were already people there.
>
>Rhaid yn aml ddibynnu ar help pobl eraill - One often has to rely on other people for help.

A simple verb (short form) is one which is inflected.

It can be inflected for person and number (personal verb) or impersonally (impersonal verb)

A compound verb (long form) is one formed with an inflected form of bod, a tense aspect (e.g. yn / wedi) and a verbnoun.

After the subject with personal verbs:

>Here there was always a mutation of the object of a personal verb.
>
>Prynais i gar newydd. I bought a new car
>
>In the following cases the mutation is really due to the adverbial insertion:
>
>Prynais i ddoe gar newydd - I bought a new car yesterday
>
>Clywais i ar y radio gân wych. - I hear a great song on the radio

After impersonal verbs where no mutation usually happens:

>Gwelwyd dyn yn yr afon. (no mutation) - A man was seen in the river.
>
>Gwelwyd neithiwr ddyn - A man was seen last night.
>
>Gwelwyd hefyd ddynes - A woman was also seen.

Impersonal verbs are common in more formal Welsh and are seen in news reports.

Some adverbial forms come before yn

wastad yn

braidd yn

bach yn

Some like erioed, byth like to come after the subject sometimes as well as at the end, depending on meaning.

The emphasised sentences above have deviations from the n

Obviously

Clearly

Anyone can see that

Indubitably

It follows that

Evidently

By basic applications of previously proven lemmas,

The proof is left to the reader that

It goes without saying that

Consequently

By immediate consequence,

Of course

But then again

By symmetry

Without loss of generality,

Anyone with a fifth grade education can see that

I would wager 5 dollars that

By the contrapositive

We need not waste ink in proving that

By Euler

By Fermat

By a simple diagonalization argument,

We all agree that

It would be absurd to deny that

Unquestionably,

Indisputably,

It is plain to see that

It would be embarrassing to miss the fact that

It would be an insult to my time and yours to prove that

Any cretin with half a brain could see that

By Fermat’s Last Theorem,

By the Axiom of Choice,

It is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis that

By a simple counting argument,

Simply put,

One’s mind immediately leaps to the conclusion that

By contradiction,

I shudder to think of the poor soul who denies that

It is readily apparent to the casual observer that

With p < 5% we conclude that

It follows from the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms that

Set theory tells us that

Divine inspiration reveals to us that

Patently,

Needless to say,

By logic

By the Laws of Mathematics

By all means,

With probability 1,

Who could deny that

Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis,

Galois died in order to show us that

There is a marvellous proof (which is too long to write here) that

We proved in class that

Our friends over at Harvard recently discovered that

It is straightforward to show that

By definition,

By a simple assumption,

It is easy to see that

Even you would be able to see that

Everybody knows that

I don’t know why anybody would ask, but

Between you and me,

Unless you accept Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem,

A reliable source has told me

It is a matter of simple arithmetic to show that

Beyond a shadow of a doubt,

When we view this problem as an undecidable residue class whose elements are universal DAGs, we see that

You and I both know that

And there you have it,

And as easy as ABC,

And then as quick as a wink,

If you’ve been paying attention you’d realize that

By the Pigeonhole Principle

By circular reasoning we see that

When we make the necessary and sufficient assumptions,

It is beyond the scope of this course to prove that

Only idealogues and sycophants would debate whether

It is an unfortunately common misconception

Hi. Is this an error, or am I missing something? Is it common in German? I've seen it a couple of times in DW. It's like the author wasn't sure whether the conjunction was adverbial, so he covered his bases:

Inzwischen hat der US-Kongress hat den Sieg des Demokraten Joe Biden bei der Präsidentschaftswahl vom 3. November formell bestätigt

I'm having trouble with when to use the subjunctive or indicative with adverbial phrases because I feel like I've been seeing contradicting things. From my textbook understanding, for a phrase like "antes de que" you would use the subjunctive like this:

"Necesito ir a la tienda antes de que ellos lleguen."

But you would use the infinitive to say:

"Necesito ir a la tienda antes de yo llegar."

The reason it's different is because the subject changes in the first sentence and doesn't in the second. Is this subject correct?

Also, could I also say "Necesito ir a la tienda antes de que yo llegue"? I feel like I've seen examples like this where the subjunctive is used even when the subject doesn't change just because the "que" is there. For example, in an online quiz the correct answer was "El niño abrirá los regalos después de que corte el pastel." I thought it would be "cortar" instead of "corte" because the subject didn't change.

Gracias por la ayuda!

I'm reading Libé and they are discussing Macrons covid diagnosis and how even the president is at risk. They use an adverbial pronoun (Y) and I get the general idea of what it refers to but I want to write the sentence without it so I understand the formation better.

It's : "le risque zéro n'existe pas, y compris pour le président"

Is it indirect object of comprendre? Or a form of 'il y a'?

Merci !

I always found it interesting that the adverb of an adjective was so similar to its ablative ending (cf. "improbe"/"improbē"), and given the function of the ablative case in Latin, I thought that it might be possible that adverbs had their origin in the ablative. Then, I found out that old Latin and other Italic languages, like Oscan, conserved PIE's final 'd' in the ablative singular suffix, and what's more, old Latin also had a final 'd' in its adverbial suffix (cf. Latin "bene" / old Latin "duenēd"). However, the Wiktionary entry for the Latin adverbial suffix states that its etymology is unknown. Is there any other evidence for or against this possibility?

Currently studying English as a foreign student and it's my first time learning linguistics and sadly I ran onto a problem. I have to find the object complement, adverbial and direct object. I think I found 2 but struggle to find the adverbial.

"Put my name on the waiting list"

This sentence. I know that "my name" is direct object and "on the waiting list" is object complement. However, I think "on the waiting list" is adverbial too but I'm not so sure, and if that is the case is it possible for "on the waiting list to be both adverbial and object complement?