შინაარსის ნახვა
პასუხი

How would this be understood?

Wilhelm-ისა და 11 ოქტომბერი, 2011-ის მიერ

შეტყობინებები: 29

ენა: English

barat (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 13:12:32

cFlat7:"Porkon manĝis" ...

I know that the subject in Esperanto is required as has been pointed out*. But theoretically, if left out, it can often be determined from context. This is done all the time in Japanese. Moreover, if left out, couldn't the convention (theoretically) be that 'oni' is the subject?

La porkon [oni] manĝis.

*Is this from the Fundamento or is it just a 'rule' that has arisen from usage?
As far as I know there is no such rule for manĝis (Japanese may have it, but unfortunatelly esperanto is different). You can leave out subject like this:

Ili drinkadis la tutan nokton, eĉ porkon manĝis...

cFlat7 (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 15:38:41

It's not that Japanese has a rule for mangxi, it works like that in Japanese for verbs in general. If the listener will know what the subject is, no need to restate it. This, I believe, is mostly in conversational situations and I don't see why it can't work (theoretically) in some situations in Eo, e.g.

A: Kion li faris?
B: Porkon mangxis.

kefga_x (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 15:39:25

I've been following this because I think it's a good question. In practice, context would easily dictate it. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was natural to do this if your native language already did it.

That said, I think it is perfectly understandable the way cFlat7 explained it, regardless of any official rules.

I don't know how that works for everyone here, and I'm far from any kind of expert in Esperanto, but if I were a bigger part of Esperanto, I would have no problem for different, if not a bit unusual, structures. Otherwise it seems we're pushing a grammar that we're used to rather than what could be allowed. If I'm wrong on any of this though, don't be afraid to call me an idiot!

ceigered (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 15:40:09

If you use oni, it points out that it's not a person known from context. Otherwise, we'd simply expect the actual person's pronoun (a bit like not overusing "je" because people expect "je" to have an indefinite meaning, so if it replaces a well known and used preposition, people will assume you mean something entirely different since you didn't use the well known and standard preposition that everyone should know).

--

@ Barat, what he's saying is in Japanese you can just leave out pronouns whenever you like as long as there's *some* context (to anyone wondering, Esperanto doesn't work anywhere near like Japanese in this regard - it's safer to always use pronouns, or use things like "manĝante", or reword things to sound interesting. Barat's example is a great example of how to do it).*

*this is mostly for the sake of non-pro-drop language speakers, who might not understand any usages. But on this page of the thread, I can't see anything that looks bad at all anyway, and everyone should be able to understand things like "Kion li manĝis?" "manĝis porkon", although perhaps saying "li manĝis porkon" is helpful since it shows you understood the question by repeating it. Then again, on the other hand, why even put in "manĝis"? Just say "porko" rido.gif

erinja (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 15:53:23

It's true that if a pronoun has already been used, it isn't always necessary to re-state it. But Esperanto doesn't drop pronouns left and right like some languages do. I would advise that beginners start out always using pronouns, until they develop enough of an ear for the language to determine when it's ok to leave the pronoun out. One language's "obvious context" showing a pronoun is another language's total lack of context and unclear usage.

---

Regarding "oni", by definition it's used when you don't know the pronoun. It's a little like saying "someone" in English. But lots of people also use it as a sort of neutral pronoun, maybe in a case where you have another pronoun in mind, but you don't want to call out a specific person.

For example, if I know that John left the door open and the cat escaped, or if I suspect it, I might still say "Oni lasis la pordon malfermita" ("One left the door open"), even though I might be sure it was him, so not to accuse him in particular.

Or if I am hoping that someone in particular will do something, I might say "Oni devos fari la taskon" (One will have to do the task), and then let someone volunteer, rather than asking someone in particular to do it.

barat (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 12 ოქტომბერი, 2011 16:00:30

cFlat7:It's not that Japanese has a rule for manĝi, it works like that in Japanese for verbs in general. If the listener will know what the subject is, no need to restate it. This, I believe, is mostly in conversational situations and I don't see why it can't work (theoretically) in some situations in Eo, e.g.

A: Kion li faris?
B: Porkon manĝis.
A: Kion li faris?
B: Manĝadon de porko.

cFlat7 (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 13 ოქტომბერი, 2011 04:32:46

barat:
cFlat7:It's not that Japanese has a rule for manĝi, it works like that in Japanese for verbs in general. If the listener will know what the subject is, no need to restate it. This, I believe, is mostly in conversational situations and I don't see why it can't work (theoretically) in some situations in Eo, e.g.

A: Kion li faris?
B: Porkon manĝis.
A: Kion li faris?
B: Manĝadon de porko.
Ah Barat, very good. This highlights something interesting. My intention was to ask "What activity is he doing". I wrote "Kion li faris", which I now realize would typically be interpreted as "what thing did he make?" (which asks that the answer be a noun).

I suppose I should have said "Kio li faris"? in order get a verb as the answer. Or is this even proper? Perhaps "Kio li agis?" or something.

barat (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 13 ოქტომბერი, 2011 05:26:31

- Kion li faris? - asking for action that was going on.
- Li manĝis porkaĵon / manĝadon de porkaĵo.

You can not say:

Kio li faris?

This is not good at all.

cFlat7 (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 13 ოქტომბერი, 2011 06:12:36

I thought so. Doesn't 'Kion li faris' ask, what is the object of the verb 'fari'? The answer would be the object, i.e. what is the object that is being acted upon?

I suppose the question could be:
'Kio estas la ago, kiun li agis?'

But this still doesn't seem right. Maybe:
'Kiel li agis?'

But this is asking more about how he is acting (e.g. slow, fast, awkwardly), not what it is he is doing.

In English I could just say, 'What was he doing?'

So maybe, 'Kio li estis faranta?'

But isn't that the same as, 'Kio li faris?'

darkweasel (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 13 ოქტომბერი, 2011 06:35:17

cFlat7:
So maybe, 'Kio li estis faranta?'

But isn't that the same as, 'Kio li faris?'
Of course it’s the same, and it’s equally wrong because you need kion.

ზემოთ დაბრუნება