Pesan: 52
Bahasa: English
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 9 Januari 2012 22.29.30
darkweasel:[BV.80] and [BV.17] (and similar) markings in PMEG always refer to a text written by Zamenhof.Dankon!
sudanglo (Tunjukkan profil) 9 Januari 2012 23.14.42
Anyway, this not what I had in mind when I launched the thread. I was raising the issue of the legitimacy of not explicitly mentioning who or what did Z.
Mi X-is Z-i Y-on, where Z is used transitively and 'Y-on' is the object of Z and not the subject of Z.
Ekz - Mi aŭdis mencii ŝian nomon or Mi aŭdis mencii, ke ŝi estos lia nova edzino.
This is different to the example above, Mi vidis danci miajn knabinojn. In that the knabinoj are the ones who danced and were seen.
erinja (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 00.12.10
sudanglo:I was raising the issue of the legitimacy of not explicitly mentioning who or what did Z.In my opinion, if you don't explicitly mention who or what did the action ("Mi aŭdis diri ke..." etc), it doesn't work in Esperanto. I can't say whether you got it from French or whatever, but in my opinion Esperanto requires some kind of subject.
That's just my lingvosento saying that, I haven't looked it up in a grammar.
I wonder somewhat whether it matters that "diri" is a transitive verb that normally would have a subject. If it were "Mi aŭdis diriĝi ke ...", I wonder if that would make it more acceptable, since "diriĝi" is a verb that can be used with no subject?
TatuLe (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 00.49.13
erinja:I wonder somewhat whether it matters that "diri" is a transitive verb that normally would have a subject. If it were "Mi aŭdis diriĝi ke ...", I wonder if that would make it more acceptable, since "diriĝi" is a verb that can be used with no subject?The subject in "Mi aŭdis diriĝi ke ..." is explicit; The following "ke-frazo" is the subject of diriĝi .
I can't think of a sentence where diriĝi is without subject, unless clauses with ke don't count.
sudanglo (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 11.24.41
One is not explicitly naming the subject of the verb following 'aŭdi', the other is - with transitive use - what follows the verb being the object of that verb.
Example: La reĝo ordonis levi la ponton.
I take Erinja's point that by converting diri to diriĝi the problem seems to go away, since diriĝi would not take an object.
However, whilst there are 3 examples in the Tekstaro of 'aŭdis diri, ke' there are none of 'aŭdis diriĝi, ke' - and furthermore it doesn't quite seem as natural as the structure under discussion for the intended meaning.
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 11.35.03
sudanglo:Miland I don't see why you are making such a fuss..I'm glad that you don't advocate the use of participles in this case, at least, and so favour custom and simplicity over greater theoretical precision.
darkweasel (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 15.38.33
Miland:greater theoretical precision.In what way does the use of adjectival participles in this case carry "greater theoretical precision" than use of an infinitive?
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 17.45.26
darkweasel:In what way does the use of adjectival participles in this case carry "greater theoretical precision" than use of an infinitive?Their meaning is explicit, whereas that of an infinitive is liable to depend more on context and accepted usage.
tommjames (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 18.18.11
If you hear a bomb explode it is undoubtedly in a process of explosion. But you would be as likely to see "mi aŭdis la bombon eksplodanta" as you would be in English to see "I heard the bomb exploding". I.e. not very, unless there is some special reason to emphasize the progressive nature of the event. Perhaps if the bomb was so huge that it took some time for the sound to die down; an atomic bomb maybe. But since we have no further context available to us there is no way to determine if this form is even useful, never mind more precise.
To any beginners reading this, be in no doubt: "Mi aŭdis la bombon eksplodi" is both completely correct, and the more common form for this type of phrase.
Sorry for labouring the point (I know sudanglo's question is on something else) but I get slightly irked by these bird-walks which do nothing to uphold clarity.
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 10 Januari 2012 22.24.12
tommjames:Yes, -anta is more precise; if you wanted to show that you heard the bomb exploding. That is to say, in the process of explosion.I'm glad you think so.
If you hear a bomb explode it is undoubtedly in a process of explosion.