Tin nhắn: 43
Nội dung: English
Bruso (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 01:36:07 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
I don't get the sentence "Resti kun leono estas
danĝere". Why isn't it "danĝera"? This is the exercise where he introduces the adverbial form, but why should this be an adverb? "To remain with a lion is dangerous." I don't see any translation where it should be "dangerously" instead. Am I missing something?
erinja (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 01:51:56 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Leono estas danĝera. Adjectives (-a) describe nouns
To stay is dangerous:
Resti estas danĝere. Adverbs (-e) describe verbs.
In "Resti kun leono estas danĝere", it's an -e because it's staying with a lion that is dangerous. The whole point of the sentence is not that lions are dangerous (in that case, why mention "resti"?). The point is that staying with a lion is dangerous, so we use -e.
-a describes a noun.
-e describes a verb or a phrase.
razlem (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 03:36:16 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Mustelvulpo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 04:28:10 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
razlem:Shouldn't it be restante?No. In English you could equally say either "Resting with a lion is dangerous" or "To rest with a lion is dangerous" but most other languages, including Esperanto, prefer the infinitive form.
drinkulo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 08:18:49 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Mustelvulpo:You can use restante, this way:razlem:Shouldn't it be restante?No. In English you could equally say either "Resting with a lion is dangerous" or "To rest with a lion is dangerous" but most other languages, including Esperanto, prefer the infinitive form.
Restante kun leono, mi estas en danĝero
or
Mi estas en danĝero restante kun leono
Also using the adjective danĝera:
Restado kun leono estas danĝera
Chainy (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 09:14:58 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Mustelvulpo:"Resting with a lion is dangerous" or "To rest with a lion is dangerous"resti = to stay, to remain.
ripozi = to rest.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 10:32:35 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Fin-trinkinte mian kafon mi ekstaris kaj forlasis la matenmanĝan tablon. Finished my coffee, then got up.
Trinkante mian kafon, mi legis la matenan ĵurnalon. Reading the paper and drinking the coffee go on at the same time.
The infinitive just names the action without specifying any temporal relation.
erinja (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 11:50:07 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
razlem (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 16:24:45 Ngày 25 tháng 11 năm 2011
Bruso (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 01:09:42 Ngày 28 tháng 11 năm 2011
(See under "adverbial overload")
Esperanto Idiosyncracies
one usage which disturbs me is the use of adverbs to describe subjects which are not explicitly stated, or are infinitives or subphrases. The former is just plain illogical; a not-explicitly stated subject is still a subject and demands an adjective. As for the latter, an infinitive example from the Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko is "Resti kun leono estas danĝere.". To me such subjects seem more like nouny things, wanting adjectives, not adverbs.
Yep, "to remain with a lion" is definitely a noun phrase.
The use of the adverb in Esperanto in phrases such as 'danci estas facile' (literally 'to dance is easily') is idiomatic and illogical but is probably due to the influence of Slav languages. It ignores the substantival character of the infinitive
Does anyone know enough about Slavic languages to know if this is true? I know Zamenhof's father was a native Russian-speaker (or Belarusian, which wasn't always considered a separate language in those days).