darkweasel:What does la pordo estas fermita say about the closing of the door? Not really anything, it just says that the door is closed. If I want to say "the door was closed" (i.e. the passive equivalent of iu fermis la pordon), I need to say la pordo estis fermita - which is exactly not a past perfect (plusquamperfect) form.

It was my impression that the past perfect and the passive past were expressed the same way in Esperanto.

Doesn't la pordo estis fermita mean both "the door was closed", as in not-open, and "the door was [or had been] closed", as in someone closed it?

I never really thought about it too much, since Esperanto grammar is supposedly so simple - but when faced with other more complex grammatical tenses and the like, my mind gets boggled.

ekz.

la pordo estis fermita = the door was closed.

la pordo estis fermita per la knabineto = the door had been closed by the little girl.

Ĉu ne?

cFlat7:

I just came across the following example of a complex form in the New Testament: "Vi auxdis, ke estas dirite: Ne adultu;..." (Matthew 5:27).

Why 'estas' and not 'estis'?.

Just in passing, in many Polish translations of the New Testament there is the present form used - estas dirite.
Who translated the NT into e-o? To the best of my knowledge Zamehof translated the Old Testament.
Anyway, translation is only a translation. How is it in the original?

darkweasel: What does la pordo estas fermita say about the closing of the door? Not really anything, it just says that the door is closed. If I want to say "the door was closed" (i.e. the passive equivalent of iu fermis la pordon), I need to say la pordo estis fermita - which is exactly not a past perfect (plusquamperfect) form.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

I am not aware of such a distinction, and according to me 'la pordo estas fermita' and 'la pordo estis fermita' can mean about the same thing. The second one is just past tense. I think it's the same difference as with 'la pordo estas verda' vs 'la pordo estis verda'.

I found that the sections on participles (including and especially the appendix) from "Being Colloquial in Esperanto" (book by David Jordan) , were an extremely clear and useful description of their use, and where one might get confused when interpreting them.

It's available for reading online

UUano:
Doesn't la pordo estis fermita mean both "the door was closed", as in not-open, and "the door was [or had been] closed", as in someone closed it?

Yes, exactly, and I may have expressed myself badly in my last post - it is not only a past perfect tense.

UUano:
la pordo estis fermita = the door was closed.

la pordo estis fermita per la knabineto = the door had been closed by the little girl.

It needs to be de la knabineto (except if the little girl was an instrument to close the door). Otherwise - you can also translate the last sentence as "the door was closed by the little girl".

Look at these sentences from the Fundamento:
Georgo Vaŝington estis naskita la dudek duan de
Februaro de la jaro mil sepcent tridek dua.

Li sentis
sin tiel malfeliĉa, ke li malbenis la tagon, en kiu li estis
naskita.

Mia onklo ne mortis per natura morto, sed li tamen ne
mortigis sin mem kaj ankaŭ estis mortigita de neniu

These sentences are barely interpretable as past perfect tenses.

However, the Fundamento also has sentences that are indeed interpretable as past perfect tenses:

Kiam via domo estis konstruata, mia domo estis jam longe konstruita.

La
fenestro longe estis nefermita; mi ĝin fermis, sed mia frato
tuj ĝin denove malfermis.

Now my theory. Unfortunately it is not in any grammar book, and it may well be completely wrong. However, I don’t remember coming across a use of the passive that could not be explained by it.

La pordo estis fermita has two meanings. The first one describes an action in the past - the closing of the door. If this meaning is intended, it does not matter if the door is now open or closed. The second one describes how the door was in the past - it was closed.

We have a similar distinction in German, where we say that there are two types of passive, the names could be translated as "action passive" and "state passive". Unfortunately Esperanto uses the same verb esti for these two things, where German uses two different verbs. It may have been better if Zamenhof had copied what is done in German, which for simple (action) passive phrases uses a verb that translates as "to become".

darkweasel:
La pordo estis fermita has two meanings. The first one describes an action in the past - the closing of the door. If this meaning is intended, it does not matter if the door is now open or closed. The second one describes how the door was in the past - it was closed.

I think at least in case of La pordo estis fermita none of the two meanings pay attention to whether the door is open now or not.

darkweasel:
We have a similar distinction in German, where we say that there are two types of passive, the names could be translated as "action passive" and "state passive". Unfortunately Esperanto uses the same verb esti for these two things, where German uses two different verbs. It may have been better if Zamenhof had copied what is done in German, which for simple (action) passive phrases uses a verb that translates as "to become".

It would be quite difficult to distinguish these two in case of your example as the 'state passive' here definitely is a result of the 'action passive'.

Nevertheless, something similar occurs also in Estonian: 'uks oli suletud' could be interpreted as an 'action passive' and 'uks oli kinni' as a 'state passive'. 'suletud' here is a past participle in the role of predicative, while 'kinni' is an adverb in the role of predicative. It seems to me that 'uks oli suletud' (the door was closed) actually is not interpreted as complex tense in Estonian - it is treated as the Past Simple with a predicative.

This way or another, both phrases describe the same state of the door: in case of the first phrase as a result of some finished action in the past and in case of the second phrase without it.

robinast:

darkweasel:
La pordo estis fermita has two meanings. The first one describes an action in the past - the closing of the door. If this meaning is intended, it does not matter if the door is now open or closed. The second one describes how the door was in the past - it was closed.

I think at least in case of La pordo estis fermita none of the two meanings pay attention to whether the door is open now or not.

ok, agreed.

however one of them pays attention to whether the door WAS closed at the time that is being talked about. the other one just describes an action: someone closes the door.

It would be quite difficult to distinguish these two in case of your example as the 'state passive' here definitely is a result of the 'action passive'.

yes. however one of them describes the door, the other describes the action.

kial vi ne iris lau la alia vojo? - la pordo estis fermita
this describes the state that the door was in at the time when i tried to get through it

kio okazis al la pordo, chu ghi normale ne estas malfermita? - jes sed nun ghi estis fermita, char iu premis tiun butonon
this could equally be expressed as "...nun iu fermis ghin". this may not be the best example but you have such uses in my previous message in "estis naskita" when referring to a person still living.

darkweasel:
kio okazis al la pordo, chu ghi normale ne estas malfermita? - jes sed nun ghi estis fermita, char iu premis tiun butonon
this could equally be expressed as "...nun iu fermis ghin". this may not be the best example but you have such uses in my previous message in "estis naskita" when referring to a person still living.

But I would certainly say "Jes sed nun ĝi estas fermita"

Because it is currently closed, since in the past someone closed it. Therefore "estas fermita".

In the section in PAG entitled 'Verbotempoj en subpropozicioj' (269 onwards) it comments that sometimes the verb in the subclause is relative to the time of the main verb sometimes absolute (referring to now). [I don't know the appropriate reference for PMEG]

With verbs of reporting and perception it seems to be relative.

Mi vidis ke li estas laca - I could see he was tired.

Li diris ke li estas anglo - He said he was English.

I don't expect anything in the Bible to be that clear - its cryptic and olde worlde language is I suppose part of its charm.

However, applying PAG to the text in question we get the interpretion that, relative to the time of hearing, the injunction (not to commit adultery) had been said - was a thing people said.

In the simplest English, the text would be perhaps 'You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery'. More elaborately, 'You have heard that it has been said'.

If the text had been 'Vi aŭdis ke estis dirate:' the translation might be 'You have heard it used to be said, or 'You have heard it was said'. I doubt that one would say You have heard it was being said.

The whole thing doesn't seem worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

@ Sudanglo, it's pretty messy isn't it? I agree about knickers in a twist, I don't think it's worth too much strict adherence to a rule in this case.

I was thinking in my head before of how a "present tense" sub clause could mean not present relative to the original sentence but present in general (e.g. it is what it is, and always is that way).

Mi lernis ke vivo estas malfacila.