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/translate/spanish-english/acabado

https://es.oxforddictionaries.com/translate/spanish-english/encendido?locale=en

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

Am I missing something? :thinking:

At any rate, I hope I give some lead. :)

Good to "see" you around!

¡Buen finde!

[Perikles]

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

Am I missing something? :thinking:


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[Perikles]

I think I must make more of an effort to make a list - I can't remember any others at present. Maybe I can then see a pattern (although I doubt it).

[poli]

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?

I think the noun is implied. The noun being wood or some other combustible. The original idea is pastillas de madera encendida (pardon me if charcoal is composed of something other than charred wood)
Una jarra de encurtidos en lugar de una jarra de pepinos encurtidos. Here, we have an example that corresponds to English. A jar of pickled cucumbers is often called a jar of pickles, at least in the USA. Instead of
jar of pickleds:bad: as used in Spanish, English converts the past participle into the noun pickles. Tostados and toasts (we would never used toasteds) is another example. Both tostados and toasts imply toasted breads/panes tostados.

In Spanish, often the past participle is an adjective that becomes a noun when the noun is implied. I can't think of a case where this occurs in English.

I don't know if I'm missing the point here, but the use of the past participle as a noun when the noun is implied is commonplace in Spanish. I remember a classic movie called "Los Olvidados" . The title was translated "The Forgotten Ones."
I just remembered that there are cases in English where the Spanish practice is used. There's a famous play called "A Moon for the Misbegotten". Other examples: the disenfranchised, the unemployed, the uneducated. It's much less commonly used in English, but it exists.

[aleCcowaN]

Think of visar.

Tráigame el sello de visar (bring me the stamp for visaing)
Tráigame el sello de visado (bring me the passport with the visa stamped)

[pjt33]

I think the noun is implied. The noun being wood or some other combustible. The original idea is pastillas de madera encendida (pardon me if charcoal is composed of something other than charred wood)
Pastillas de encendido are firelighters, not charcoal. The key ingredient is short-chain hydrocarbons.

Una jarra de encurtidos en lugar de una jarra de pepinos encurtidos. Here, we have an example that corresponds to English. A jar of pickled cucumbers is often called a jar of pickles, at least in the USA. Instead of
jar of pickleds:bad: as used in Spanish, English converts the past participle into the noun pickles. Tostados and toasts (we would never used toasteds) is another example. Both tostados and toasts imply toasted breads/panes tostados.
Interesting: I wouldn't use *toasts either unless talking about speeches made with a glass in hand. For me toast (bread) is uncountable.

In Spanish, often the past participle is an adjective that becomes a noun when the noun is implied. I can't think of a case where this occurs in English.

I don't know if I'm missing the point here, but the use of the past participle as a noun when the noun is implied is commonplace in Spanish. I remember a classic movie called "Los Olvidados" . The title was translated "The Forgotten Ones."
I just remembered that there are cases in English where the Spanish practice is used. There's a famous play called "A Moon for the Misbegotten". Other examples: the disenfranchised, the unemployed, the uneducated. It's much less commonly used in English, but it exists.
The oppressed was the first example I thought of. Interesting that all our examples so far are negative.

I think it is missing the point, though. The original point, as I understood it, wasn't about adjectives which are utcs but about using a past participle (encendido) to describe a future intention (tablets of have-been-set-on-fire vs tablets of will-set-on-fire).

[aleCcowaN]

By "pastillas de encendido", were you talking of barbecue fire starter cubes? Oh, my! That's an aberration of the language, and an aberration of the barbecue (needing more than one match to lit a fire).

"Pastillas de encendido" are a part of the "sistema de encendido" in a motor vehicle using fuel and explosion started by spark. The other ones are "pastillas para encender", no matter what they say and use in a lot of places. They are the same nitwits who speak of "modistos" and "industria alimenticia" everywhere and now and then drop a "producto alimentario". They are hopelessly lost (I always wondered if the "industria alimenticia" provides a lot of iron, "mi primo, el tenisto" may need it :D)

[Perikles]

By "pastillas de encendido", were you talking of barbecue fire starter cubes? Oh, my! That's an aberration of the language, and an aberration of the barbecue (needing more than one match to lit a fire).

"Pastillas de encendido" are a part of the "sistema de encendido" in a motor vehicle using fuel and explosion started by spark. The other ones are "pastillas para encender", no matter what they say and use in a lot of places.

Yes, we have a small stove which burns wood, and I use one of these cubes to start the fire (for wood, you only need one - for barbecue charcoal, you need many more). The packet clearly says "pastillas de encendido" which made no sense to me.

The packet also has the warning in several languages: Atención: Sólido inflamable. What a surprise :rolleyes:

[aleCcowaN]

The packet clearly says "pastillas de encendido" which made no sense to me.

I agree.


The packet also has the warning in several languages: Atención: Sólido inflamable. What a surprise :rolleyes:

It goes along the line with the microwave oven warning not to dry your pet in it, or the Superman costume advising not to try to fly while wearing it. They simply won't leave Darwin to do his job.

[JPablo]

Yes, we have a small stove which burns wood, and I use one of these cubes to start the fire (for wood, you only need one - for barbecue charcoal, you need many more). The packet clearly says "pastillas de encendido" which made no sense to me.

The packet also has the warning in several languages: Atención: Sólido inflamable. What a surprise :rolleyes:

Dicccionario de la Real Academia:

Encendido
3. m. Acción y efecto de encender. El encendido de las luces, del fuego.

When we talk about "acción" y "efecto" de "encender", of course, we are talking about what "verbs" are all about, but also "nouns", as "efecto" would be a result. Whether in the past, the present or the future.

Those "pastillas", are able to perform the "action" of "encender", in order to create the "effect" of something burning.

Maybe I have not delved too deeply on all the posts of this thread, but to me (being a Spaniard), I still don't see what is not making sense... :thinking:

Maybe the answer to this conundrum is the "efecto" part of the definition...

[poli]

Interesting: I wouldn't use *toasts either unless talking about speeches made with a glass in hand. For me toast (bread) is uncountable.

Toasts are cracker-like toasted bread sold in packages. I think an older term is rusk or hardtack.

By the way the word for spark coil or ignition coil in Spanish is bobina de encendido.

[Perikles]

Dicccionario de la Real Academia:

Encendido
3. m. Acción y efecto de encender. El encendido de las luces, del fuego.

When we talk about "acción" y "efecto" de "encender", of course, we are talking about what "verbs" are all about, but also "nouns", as "efecto" would be a result. Whether in the past, the present or the future.

Those "pastillas", are able to perform the "action" of "encender", in order to create the "effect" of something burning.

Maybe I have not delved too deeply on all the posts of this thread, but to me (being a Spaniard), I still don't see what is not making sense... :thinking:



I find it illogical that the past participle is used for a result which could be in the past, present or future. I can't help comparing it to Greek which would have a future infinitive to express something which will happen in the future. It is no good telling me it is simply a noun - to me pastillas de encendido reads as cubes of lit and not cubes for lighting. It is interesting that I have trouble explaining why I see a difficulty here.