הודעות: 52
שפה: English
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 12:29:15
Does the following seem OK to you: mi neniam aŭdis diri ke ŝi estas malamiko de Esperanto? (I've never heard it said that ...)
Miland (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 12:36:11
darkweasel (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 14:19:07
EldanarLambetur (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 15:04:04
Miland: its subject should be the same as that of the main verb. That is not the case here.This is what comes to my mind too, I found the sentence confusing until I read the translation. It came across as "I've never heard to say..." Which is weird!
darkweasel:It seems OK to me, since you can understand an implicit iun (mi neniam aŭdis iun diri, ke ...).PMEG says "I-verbo tamen ne povas havi propran (gramatikan) subjekton."
[Translation: An I-verb however cannot have its own grammatical subject.]
This can be found on this page.
Instead, the implicitly understood subject should be "mi" (the subject of the main verb as Miland points out), not "iun" or something other than the main verb's subject. Have I understood that right?
If you're after a different subject (e.g. "iun" instead of "mi"), would you use an adjectival participle? As in something like:
Mi neniam aŭdis tion diratan = I've never heard that being said.
Is that correct?
If so does it extend to your example? E.g.
Mi neniam aŭdis diritan, ke... = I've never heard it (having been) said that...
(Or, iun dirinta = someone having said)
Would an "-at-" participle be better? Is the "ĝin" okay to be implicit in this construction?
Miland (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 17:25:51
EldanarLambetur:Mi neniam aŭdis tion diratan = I've never heard that being said.I would say No, but the reason is somewhat subtle. If I understand correctly, your meaning is that it has not been said at all. Thus there is an implicit esti here: Mi neniam aŭdis tion [esti] dirata. To say Mi neniam aŭdis tion diratan would mean that it was being said, but you didn't hear it at the time.
Is that correct?
It's like the difference between Mi farbis la domon ruĝa ("I painted the house (so that it would be) red") and Mi farbis la domon ruĝan, "I painted the red house". Here's a relevant page from PMEG.
The distinction between dirita, for completed events, and dirata, for incomplete or "live" events, in my view may well not matter here.
EldanarLambetur (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 18:52:26
Wouldn't it just be a simple matter of using dirata/dirita (without the "n") instead then?
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 19:01:31
Miland:PMEG indicates that where an infinitive is used as a noun, its subject should be the same as that of the main verb.That page says that the implied subject of the infinitive is usually (or "most often", to translate literally) the same as that of the main verb. I would say that leaves the door open for exceptions.
There's also another page, at the bottom of which we find:
PMEG:Kiam la ĉefverbo estas vidi, aŭdi, senti, imagi aŭ simile, povas aperi I-verbo, kiu estas perverba priskribo de la objekto de la ĉefverbo. Tiam tiu objekto estas senca subjekto de la I-verbo:The examples given are slightly different to this case, as they all have an explicit object on the main verb. However I think I would concur with darkweasel that it may be acceptable for the infinitive's "senca subjekto" to be the main verb's implied object ("aŭdis iun diri"). The grammatical acceptability of phrases that treat 'subkomprenaĵoj' as if they were explicit does seem to vary case by case, but in this case I would hazard a guess it's not too bad. Could be wrong though.
By there way there are some hits in Tekstaro for aŭdis diri, ke, if it's of any interest.
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 19:36:50
The Tekstaro has 3 hits for aŭdis diri, ke.
But, none for:
aŭdis dirite, ke,
aŭdis dirate, ke,
aŭdis diriĝi, ke
- which would be other ways of leaving the subject (of diri) unstated.
'Aŭdis onin diri, ke' sounds really unusual, but of course 'aŭdi iun diri, ke' is perfectly normal.
Edit: Does anybody feel that there is a clear difference in nuance between:
Mi aŭdis eksplodi la bombon
Mi aŭdis la bombon eksplodi
Evildela (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 22:30:28
Mi aŭdis eksplodi la bombonhmm that sounds weird to my ears, but I'm not sure, as I've never seen that type of use before
Mi aŭdis la bombon eksplodiThat sounds more natural
TatuLe (הצגת פרופיל) 8 בינואר 2012, 22:43:02
Evildela:I think the reason it sounds weird is that the word order makes la bombon look like the object of eksplodi instead of aŭdis.Mi aŭdis eksplodi la bombonhmm that sounds weird to my ears, but I'm not sure, as I've never seen that type of use before