- Forum >
- Topic: Czech >
- "Není čeho si vážit."
19 Comments
čeho is the genitive form of co. Vážit si is a verb that takes a genitive object, hence "vážit si čeho/koho".
1109
"Není čeho si vážit." Why isn't "si" in the second position, as in this previous example: "Není se čeho bát" = "There is nothing to fear"?
And also why isn't "ničeho" required to maintain the double negative in both of DL's given sentences?
You have must consider "čeho si vážit" separately. You can't just put "ničeho" in there, it does not belong there.
You can have "ničeho si nevážit" "to respect nothing" "not to respect anything" if you want a double negative.
Se has to be on the second "place" in a sentence. But this rule does not apply to si. About "ničeho" I have the same question.
It does apply to si. It is in the second position of the "čeho si vážit" infinitive phrase.
vážit si and respektovat have pretty much the same meaning, with some exceptions. vážit= to weigh
- 1955
Could this sentence translate : There's nothing to estimate/There's nothing to value. I imagine the visit of a notary (in order to prepare a certified/notarial act). Just to catch the use of "si vážit".
I replied "Není si čeho vážit" and it was accepted. Nonetheless, I was given the alternative suggestion "Není čeho si vážit". I am a bit confused: shouldn't the dative "si" have priority for the Wackernagel position (second word in the sentence)?
Following that, it would mean, theoretically, that "Není vážit si čeho" should also be equally correct (although it sounds a bit weird). Also, it would mean that my response ("Není si čeho vážit") should not be correct, since the "infinitive phrase" would be reduced to "si čeho vážit". Yet the response was marked as a pass.
Not sure about "Není vážit si čeho". With the right stressing it might be acceptable.
However, there is no reason why "Není si čeho vážit" should be rejected. Si is in the second position of the sentence. There is no problem here.
What is the difference between "Není ceho si vázit" and Není se ceho vásit" which I met a few minutes ago with the same English and why is 'se' in second position and 'si' not.
Having read through this discussion I am still unclear why a previous answer was "Není se ceho bát". with the reflexive particle in second place in the sentence while here it is second in the clause. Would both be correct in either case or is there a subtle difference which escapes me? Also in this case should a comma follow 'není'. Thank you for all your helpand advice.
both would be correct in either case, and there is no difference in meaning or emphasis. to explain what is happening here would open a few cans of worms (google "clitic climbing in czech" for a preview). we may opt to hide the sentences with the embedded clitics until later in the tree.
no, the comma does not belong in there:
Je‑li infinitiv závislý na slovesu být nebo mít, tvoří s ním těsnou významovou a zvukovou jednotu, čárkou ho neoddělujeme: Není kam jít. Nemá oč se opřít. Nebylo s kým se poradit.
If the infinitive depends on the verbs být or mít, they are tightly bound in meaning and intonation, and we do not use the comma to separate them: Není kam jít. Nemá oč se opřít. Nebylo s kým se poradit.
