Past participles in Spanish as a noun in English

[Perikles]

I have come across a few past participles where I would expect an infinitive, in names like

pastillas de encendido

Annoyingly, I can't remember any others, but I have heard several. Is there a definitive list?

[JPablo]

Maybe there is one.

I don't know.

Oxford gives many examples,

Para un mejor acabado, aplica dos manos de pintura.

https://es.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...nglish/acabado

https://es.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...dido?locale=en

But the translation would be a noun, (like "ignition) not really an infinitive.

Am I missing something?

At any rate, I hope I give some lead.

Good to "see" you around!

¡Buen finde!

[Perikles]

Escrito originalmente por JPablo

But the translation would be a noun, (like "ignition) not really an infinitive.

Am I missing something?

In the example I cite, I would have expected "encender" not "encendido" which is why I mentioned the infinitive. The equivalent English has a variety of different forms, for example "for lighting a fire" (present participle) or "for the lighting of a fire" (gerund).

I just wondered whether there is some kind of rule which explains why a past participle is used which appears to be totally illogical.

I think I'm right in saying that Ancient Greek would have either a future infinitive or a future participle, both of which convey an intention that something will happen. This is logical, and it bothers me when it is not.

[aleCcowaN]

What's the "logical" problem here?

a la salida, abone lo consumido
estamos orgullosos de lo logrado
cuando se vaya, deje el tablero en posición de apagado
el automóvil tiene encendido electrónico
quién me quita lo bailado
ésta es la lista de todo lo gastado
eso délo por sabido
no hay que vivir en el pasado
lo engañaron porque es un confiado

[Perikles]

Escrito originalmente por aleCcowaN

What's the "logical" problem here?

a la salida, abone lo consumido
estamos orgullosos de lo logrado
cuando se vaya, deje el tablero en posición de apagado
el automóvil tiene encendido electrónico
quién me quita lo bailado
ésta es la lista de todo lo gastado
eso délo por sabido
no hay que vivir en el pasado
lo engañaron porque es un confiado

Quite simple - all the examples you give are perfect participles and they all represent something in the past. No problem there. But using the pp for something in the future is illogical to me. As my example of pastillas de encendido.

[aleCcowaN]

Escrito originalmente por Perikles

Quite simple - all the examples you give are perfect participles and they all represent something in the past. No problem there. But using the pp for something in the future is illogical to me. As my example of pastillas de encendido.

Which is the difference between "pastillas de encendido", "posición de apagado" and "encendido electrónico" in a vehicle which burns "destilado de petróleo"? I don't see participles, and even less "the past". I only see nouns derived from verbs that somewhat are still in need of being understood within the context of actions, pretty much like it is done by using -ente or -ante (analogue to English -ing), like in "aguas surgentes".

[Perikles]

Escrito originalmente por aleCcowaN

Which is the difference between "pastillas de encendido", "posición de apagado" and "encendido electrónico" in a vehicle which burns "destilado de petróleo"? I don't see participles, and even less "the past". I only see nouns derived from verbs that somewhat are still in need of being understood within the context of actions, pretty much like it is done by using -ente or -ante (analogue to English -ing), like in "aguas surgentes".

Fine - there is no difference, and this was what I don't understand. They are all nouns which have the same form as the past participle of the verb from which they are derived. Is this correct?

My problem seems to be with expressions describing an object which has a specific purpose, and there seems to be no general rule as to how this is constructed in Spanish. Where English has two nouns, combined, hyphenated or separate, where one noun serves as an adjective, Spanish has:

líquido limpiador
papel para borrador
pie de apoyo
soporte para apoyar
tijeras de poder
aguja de tejer
tabla para cortar
pastillas de encendido

Can you see why I'm confused? There is a variety of ways - why de + infinitive sometimes, para + infinitive other times, de + what looks like a past participle but is a noun?

Is there any explanation as to why a noun generated from a verb sometimes takes the form of a past participle?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

I don't know if there is a professional linguistic explanation for that --I haven't found it, but the use of what verb form is used in these cases corresponds to what they were related to from the start.
Your examples point out rightly that these nouns are related to an activity, but I think the case of "pastilla de encendido" is different, because the idea of "encendido" (similar to Alec's examples) already existed before those "pastillas" were sold, so I guess that is why their name is associated to the past participle instead of the action of turning the car on. They could have been called "pastillas de encender" or "pastillas encendedoras", but I think they wouldn't have been immediately associated with the parts of a car involved in the process of "encendido".

[pjt33]

Escrito originalmente por Perikles

Where English has two nouns, combined, hyphenated or separate, where one noun serves as an adjective, Spanish has:

líquido limpiador
papel para borrador
pie de apoyo
soporte para apoyar
tijeras de poder
aguja de tejer
tabla para cortar
pastillas de encendido

You missed verb-3rd-singular-noun-plural: limpiaparabrisas etc.

[aleCcowaN]

Escrito originalmente por Perikles

Fine - there is no difference, and this was what I don't understand. They are all nouns which have the same form as the past participle of the verb from which they are derived. Is this correct?

My problem seems to be with expressions describing an object which has a specific purpose, and there seems to be no general rule as to how this is constructed in Spanish. Where English has two nouns, combined, hyphenated or separate, where one noun serves as an adjective, Spanish has:

líquido limpiador
papel para borrador
pie de apoyo
soporte para apoyar
tijeras de poder
aguja de tejer
tabla para cortar
pastillas de encendido

Can you see why I'm confused? There is a variety of ways - why de + infinitive sometimes, para + infinitive other times, de + what looks like a past participle but is a noun?

Is there any explanation as to why a noun generated from a verb sometimes takes the form of a past participle?

I'm still thinking a good answer for this.

There are many ways a verb becomes a noun, or part of a noun, sometimes trough an adjectival form:

a) detergente (emoliente, suavizante, astringente)
b) encendido
c) limpiaparabrisas (guardabarros, rompeportones, trotacalles)

Reflecting on how it "feels" to me

In group a, analogue to -ing forms in English, it seems to need the present participle to depict "the one which does this": "the one that cleans", "the one that softens", etc.

In group c, some sort of "live action show" is set, and third person singular present tense works like "a lively infinitive"

In group b, there's a need to show the noun as a result of a completed action, because it is indeed (el destilado, el tejido, el raspado) or, similar to group a, "the action of doing something". To be clear, in group a, the one that performs the action; in group b-plus, the performing of the action itself. So, in a spark ignition internal combustion engine, the action could either "ignición" -the act of setting something in flames- or "encendido". I think there's a short list of nouns that come this way: encendido, apagado, abigarrado, and it looks to me they are used when what they do or look has transcended the way they came to be what they are.

But still thinking...