Just checking as I'm doubting myself based on some texts I've been reading

Instinctively I would say;
[Estas] aŭdinta la novaĵon, mi foriras
Having heard the news I left. Can I drop the Estas, as this feels to me more natural to do so?

Evildela:Just checking as I'm doubting myself based on some texts I've been reading

Instinctively I would say;
[Estas] aŭdinta la novaĵon, mi foriras
Having heard the news I left. Can I drop the Estas, as this feels to me more natural to do so?

I believe you'd say "Aŭdinte la novaĵojn, mi foriris"
= Having heard the news, I left (there's no ambiguity since the adverb modifies the verb, and the verb is being done by you, ergo it's known that the adverb is attributed to your list of actions)

I didn't actually think that you could say something like "Estas farinta, mi faris", seems hard to understand for me, as if there's two separate actions that are unrelated, and as if there's a seperate person or agent doing the action involving "estas" that's been dropped.

----

I guess you could also say "aŭdinta mi", although that sort of translates to "the having-heard-the-news me", which is only useful if we're talking about narratives involving different time streams and paradoxically created duplicates of individuals in the same time stream .

----

I guess you could also use "estinte aŭdanta la novaĵojn" if you really wanted to

----

All that said, I'm assuming it's OK to have the accusative follow the adverbial verb (aŭdinte), since that's what I've always done, but I've never actually read any rules on that matter, I've just assumed that's what you do (how else could you introduce an object to the adverbial verb construction, I guess?)...

ceigered:

Evildela:Just checking as I'm doubting myself based on some texts I've been reading

Instinctively I would say;
[Estas] aŭdinta la novaĵon, mi foriras
Having heard the news I left. Can I drop the Estas, as this feels to me more natural to do so?

I believe you'd say "Aŭdinte la novaĵojn, mi foriris"
= Having heard the news, I left (there's no ambiguity since the adverb modifies the verb, and the verb is being done by you, ergo it's known that the adverb is attributed to your list of actions)

You can leave out the "I believe", you’re absolutely right!

darkweasel:
You can leave out the "I believe", you’re absolutely right!

But then I have to abandon my air of false humility!

BTW, just sprung to mind that if this ever gets too complicated, using round-about methods with dum/post (ke?), antaŭ ol, etc, should save the day too.

Leginte la komentojn, mi min demandas kial nobody has commented on the ambiguity of 'news'. Does this mean an item of news as imparted by a friend, or news as on the television or radio?

sudanglo:nobody has commented on the ambiguity of 'news'. Does this mean an item of news as imparted by a friend, or news as on the television or radio?

Probably because we're assuming that there's context missing that we don't care enough to find out about

It's a bit like "homo". "La homo saltis".
But which person jumped? What colour was his skin? Did he have 20/20 vision? Was it even a "he"? How old were they? What was their name? etc.

But since it was "aŭdinte", I'm inclined to believe it was suddenly-distributed news, perhaps from a colleague barging in and going "OMG You'll never believe this! Jerry's hanging onto the edge of a building with merely his pinkies! We have to help".*

If it was "aŭskultinte", then I'd go with the radio, or listening to a narrative from someone.

------

*EDIT: I forgot to put in an extra "!" there. Looks like "We don't really have to help all that urgently"