Solulo:Every language has sth to sell. So does esperanto.

I like this phrase

For example, in some languages you may use a different grammatical form to describe someone, depending on whether the person is older or younger than you.

And French has two words for 'You' depending on your relationship to the other person, whereas Esperanto almost exclusively uses 'Vi'

But the important difference here, Erinja, is that Esperanto, from the very beginning, has had complex forms of the verb.

So we are not talking here about trying to import into the language a grammatical feature which it never had.

Why did Zamenhof give Esperanto the complex verb forms?

It may have been that he noticed that there are occasions when the simple forms won't do, but it also might have been that he was influenced by the notion of allowing for flexibility in the face of the readily anticipable influences of diverse mother tongues.

He did this elsewhere in, for example, in not choosing a fixed word order to flag subject and object (as English does), so allowing the Frenchman to say mi ŝin vidis (je l'ai vue) and the Englishman to say mi vidis ŝin (I saw her)

Incidentally, I' m not sure how you would make the distinction between 'mi devus esti farinta' and 'mi estus devinta fari' using just simple forms. Pehaps that is obvious, but I naturally find the complex forms simpler here.

If Esperanto is capable of making such distinctions using the grammar it was given, I don't see why one should feel inhibited at exploiting this resource, should one wish to. Though granted the normal practice shows a preference for simple forms where possible.

And there is a very big difference between 'Mi povis/us trafi la trajnon' and the various meanings that can be expressed with the complex forms.

Or, to take another example, 'kiam ŝi envenis la ĉambron mi estis skribanta la leteron, which isn't the same as 'kiam ŝi envenis la ĉambron, mi skribis la leteron' or 'jam skribis la leteron' or 'estis jam skribinta la leteron'.

Ultimately, you could adapt your argument about not necessarily expessing meaning that the language is capable of, to justify a far less subtle usage also in the lexical field - don't say kabano aŭ ĉaledo, say dometo

Sudanglo, I believe you've been reading these forums long enough to know that I don't advocate completely ignoring the existence of complex verb forms. They should be used when appropriate. Yes, it's useful to beginners to learn how we express certain ideas in Esperanto, though we don't normally choose to do so.

But you have also been reading long enough to know that beginners need to be told that extensive use of complex forms is not usual.

This is a common question from beginners, about complex forms. Many beginners assume that since other languages they speak have very complex verb systems, that they have to use a lot of complex verb forms to speak Esperanto well. That isn't the case. It's appropriate to use the complex forms sometimes, but most of the time it isn't appropriate to use them, and beginners need our help in learning which situations are which.

What bugs me Erinja is the idea that the pendulum has swung too far, that the constant repetition of the idea that Esperanto prefers simple forms has generated a sort of taboo about the complex forms.

Maybe I've been unlucky, but I seem to have across too many examples of sentences in texts where insistence of using the simple forms only, has produced something which I have to read back and forth to determine the meaning. And this in published translations produced by very experienced Esperantists.

Actually, I think that there is very little danger of beginners over-using the complex forms. I don't see it in the Forums here and it is not in my personal experience. Your experience may be different.

The problem I perceive is the underuse, when needed.

Using a complex form when the majority of Esperantists might use a simple form is not at all likely to obfuscate ones meaning. But the reverse is NOT true.

And in the final analysis, Esperanto is after all a language in which the balance between clarity of expression and usage is different to that in the natural languages. And quite rightly so.

sudanglo:What bugs me Erinja is the idea that the pendulum has swung too far, that the constant repetition of the idea that Esperanto prefers simple forms has generated a sort of taboo about the complex forms.

Has it really though? I think necessity is enough to swing the pendulum back to the middle, since there's no way people can speak Esperanto without using more complex forms.

Speak Indonesian or Japanese, and the whole concept of tenses is turned on its head, and yet the expressive power of both is massive (Indonesian puts the focus on context, almost turning the language into a story-telling device, and Japanese has all sorts of neat ways to deal with adding detail to tense and mood, like here).

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, I'd rather people use -as than SUBJECT estas VERB-anta OBJECT-n and other things like that.

sudanglo:Actually, I think that there is very little danger of beginners over-using the complex forms. I don't see it in the Forums here and it is not in my personal experience. Your experience may be different.

I see it frequently in lessons I correct. People try to translate things exactly the way it's said in their native languages. It isn't unusual to see constructions like "Mi havas iri" or "Mi estas iranta al manĝi" (instead of "mi manĝos"). Or whole strings of sentences with participle forms. "Kiam mi estis iranta al la vendejo, mi estas vidinta bovinon, kiu estis manĝanta."

I correct lessons for French speakers and English speakers, and I see this type of error with both. Several times I have had to work to convince the students that we really don't talk that way. They are unable to believe the range of meanings that a simple -is, -as, or -os can convey, until I demonstrate it. Normally I send them a short story written in relatively easy grammar, and I ask them to read it and mentally translate each sentence into their own language. They are amazed at how their brain automatically inserts the correct tenses in their native language, though the Esperanto uses only simple tenses.

As far as writings not making tense clear, I have run into this in English as well. In my opinion it isn't a function of Esperanto's verb system. It's a function of how clearly a person writes.

Using a complex form when the majority of Esperantists might use a simple form is not at all likely to obfuscate ones meaning.

I disagree completely.

If someone says in English "I'm studying Spanish", it usually means that they're in the process of learning it, but they're not studying it right this second. But "Mi estas studanta la hispanan" gives the impression that someone is studying it right this second - otherwise, the person would have said "Mi studas la hispanan".

The problem is that we have come to use those complex verb forms as emphasis. We use the forms when it's important (for whatever reason) that the exact tense be expressed with absolute clarity. Therefore using a complex verb form is akin to telling the listener, "Listen up, because this order of events is important, and you need to pay attention to these tenses so you get it right".

If you are using too many complex forms, in cases where the tense ISN'T that important, then it's like writing your entire message in bold, rather than writing only a few key words in bold. You might say "But everything I have to say is important, and you need to pay attention to it all equally!" But the human brain doesn't work that way. Esperanto word order is also flexible, and we do use this flexibility to affect our style and emphasis. But if you use the flexible word order in every sentence, you've just lost that extra expressive ability, because you no longer distinguish between standard speech and "Listen up, I'm altering my word order, so it means something is getting extra emphasis".

I'd guess that a similar culture of emphasis, but taken to the extreme, is what lead to the current range of interesting long verb forms in English and the Celtic languages

"I am writing"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (seriously, did Bill Clinton ever say anything else during his presidency worth noting? All I've heard quote from him is this one line)

With only "I do eat cheese" being an example of the emphatic power of "do" still optional

While it's a cool system to have evolved, probably not for EO

Every language has ways of adding emphasis. Word order is a common way to do it. Emphasis words can be used. Emphatic grammatical forms can do it, tone of voice can do it. But I think that finding ways to emphasize or de-emphasize elements of a sentence is a totally normal thing in every language.

------

ceigered:did Bill Clinton ever say anything else during his presidency worth noting?

"I feel your pain"
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

But Clinton doesn't hold a candle to Marion Barry, former mayor of Washington DC, caught in a crack bust (while mayor. Re-elected after serving time). Choice line: "The b:::: set me up!"

erinja:

ceigered:did Bill Clinton ever say anything else during his presidency worth noting?

"I feel your pain"
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

I'd love to have seen him in a political debate with Gandhi.

Marion Barry [...] Choice line: "The b:::: set me up!"

I sorta envy (sorta ) crazy US politics for this. I think I get why comedy and politics have such a symbiotic relationship now

OK, I'll stop yapping before I draw things off onto a tangent

Solulo, you may be right in complaining about the identical translations. After thinking about it, I see the distinction you are drawing, which I did not while I was translating.

How about:

4. She needn't have done it...
Ŝi faris ĝin senbezone.

5. She didn't need to do it...
Ŝi ne bezonis fari ĝin.

I think that captures it a bit better.