Повідомлення: 29
Мова: English
cFlat7 (Переглянути профіль) 13 жовтня 2011 р. 12:19:21
darkweasel:Same problem then, 'kion' will result in an answer that focuses on the object of the action. How do you ask for what the action itself is?cFlat7:Of course it’s the same, and it’s equally wrong because you need kion.
So maybe, 'Kio li estis faranta?'
But isn't that the same as, 'Kio li faris?'
erinja (Переглянути профіль) 13 жовтня 2011 р. 13:30:22
cFlat7:Same problem then, 'kion' will result in an answer that focuses on the object of the action. How do you ask for what the action itself is?"Kion li faris?"
"fari" can be translated as "to do" or "to make". Context will tell you the difference. In the meaning of "to do", "Kion li faris?" is asking "What did he do?" or "What was he doing?" and the answer would be a verb (Li dormis, li skribis, etc)
If the meaning is "to make", then the answer to "Kion li faris?" would be a noun, and it would be the thing he was making. Li faris kukon, etc.
When talking about the past, "kion li faris" is unlikely to be talking about making, unless there is some special context. I would say that "What did he do? / What was he doing?" would be the default translation of "Kion li faris?", and the default answer would be a verb, absent any kind of special context.
If you really spent yesterday baking, the conversation is likely to be something like this:
A: Kion vi faris?
B: Mi bakis dolĉaĵojn.
A: Ho, kion vi bakis?
B: Mi bakis kukon.
cFlat7 (Переглянути профіль) 13 жовтня 2011 р. 14:12:48
targanook (Переглянути профіль) 13 жовтня 2011 р. 16:09:12
Li porkon manĝis.
Kian agon faris li?
(li faris) Manĝadon de porko.
Kiun agon faris li? (if there are more to choose from)
1) Drinkadon.
2) Manĝadon.
3) Dormadon.
I think that will help you.
Wilhelm (Переглянути профіль) 14 жовтня 2011 р. 19:18:55
cFlat7:Moreover, if left out, couldn't the convention (theoretically) be that 'oni' is the subject?This is what I was trying to get at. That it would be a easy substitute for a simple passive if "oni" was understood as the subject.
La porkon [oni] manĝis.
*Is this from the Fundamento or is it just a 'rule' that has arisen from usage?
Wilhelm (Переглянути профіль) 14 жовтня 2011 р. 19:22:26
sudanglo:Never mind whether you can have sentences with an object but no explicit subject, if you are going round eating whole pigs at a sitting, no wonder there is an obesity problem.haha! I guess "porkaĵon" would have been more appropriate.
erinja (Переглянути профіль) 14 жовтня 2011 р. 19:23:28
Wilhelm:It would be an easy substitute if that usage had ever established itself in Esperanto. But it isn't done, so if you said simply "La porkon manĝis", "oni" would not be understood to be the subject, and the listener would be waiting to hear the subject at the end of the sentence. [i.e. "la porkon manĝis...... mia frato]cFlat7:Moreover, if left out, couldn't the convention (theoretically) be that 'oni' is the subject?This is what I was trying to get at. That it would be a easy substitute for a simple passive if "oni" was understood as the subject.
La porkon [oni] manĝis.
*Is this from the Fundamento or is it just a 'rule' that has arisen from usage?
Wilhelm (Переглянути профіль) 15 жовтня 2011 р. 01:57:06
erinja:Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know, if this had ever been common usage.
It would be an easy substitute if that usage had ever established itself in Esperanto. But it isn't done, so if you said simply "La porkon manĝis", "oni" would not be understood to be the subject, and the listener would be waiting to hear the subject at the end of the sentence. [i.e. "la porkon manĝis...... mia frato]
Much appreciated!
Vilhelmo.
Kalantir (Переглянути профіль) 15 жовтня 2011 р. 19:14:10
On an unrelated note... ever noticed how the word "they" can refer to a single person of an unspecified gender? I'm surprised a language like English hasn't stolen a better word for that yet. Or maybe it has and I just don't know it yet.