Mesaĝoj: 28
Lingvo: English
Mustelvulpo (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-07 13:48:01
sudanglo:I'm a bit confused and want to make sure I understand this. In these sentences, shouldn't the verb in the second clause be in the present tense? I'm under the impression that "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis." means "He went out even though it had been raining." and to express "He went out even though it was raining at the time" would be "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to be sure I get this right.he went out even though it was raining1. Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis
2. Li eliris spite de tio, ke pluvis (spite la pluvon)
3. Kvankam pluvis, li tamen eliris.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-07 13:55:25
Mustelvulpo:No, you are confusing this with indirect speech. The rule you are getting at is valid only for indirect speech (li diris, ke mi faras tion) but this is not a case of indirect speech.sudanglo:I'm a bit confused and want to make sure I understand this. In these sentences, shouldn't the verb in the second clause be in the present tense? I'm under the impression that "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis." means "He went out even though it had been raining." and to express "He went out even though it was raining at the time" would be "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I want to be sure I get this right.he went out even though it was raining1. Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis
2. Li eliris spite de tio, ke pluvis (spite la pluvon)
3. Kvankam pluvis, li tamen eliris.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-07 16:38:16
I'm under the impression that "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis." means "He went out even though it had been raining." and to express "He went out even though it was raining at the time" would be "Li eliris eĉ malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas."Very interesting point, Mustelvulpo.
It is quite true that '-is' can refer to an earlier time than that of another action in the same sentence.
However in the sentence in question the plausible interpretation of pluvis is 'was raining', rather than 'had been raining'.
Why would the going out need comment otherwise. Dry weather would not normally be an impediment to going out.
To guarantee no theoretical ambiguity, you would have to re-phrase.
For example, you might say 'antaŭe pluvis' or 'estis pluvinta' for the meaning of 'had been raining', or 'tiam pluvis' for the meaning of 'was raining'.
You might also, perhaps say 'li eliris malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas'.
Unless he was some sort of time traveller, the meaning could hardly be that he went out despite that fact that it is now raining.
Dark Weasel's very good at finding references in PMEG. Perhaps he can give you an appropriate link for the absolute and relative tense uses in Esperanto.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-07 16:40:47
sudanglo:I don’t have a lot of time right now, on first sight I found only this: Verboformoj en nerekta parolo
Dark Weasel's very good at finding references in PMEG. Perhaps he can give you an appropriate link for the absolute and relative tense uses in Esperanto.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-08 13:02:01
In the section you linked, the author discusses relative tense usage in terms of indirect speech. But this seems to me to a be a little strained.
It seems somewhat artificial to interpret all cases of relative tense usage as kvazaŭa rekta parolo.
I feel distinctly uncertain as to whether you can create a formal linguistic rule to account for relative tense usage.
Mustelvulpo (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-09 00:53:30
Hyperboreus (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-09 04:12:39
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-09 06:17:31
Mustelvulpo:So I would say "Li eliris malgraŭ tio, ke pluvis" but according to PMEG, in adding a clause I would say: " Mi vidis, ke li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas." Is this correct?No, because the second one isn’t indirect speech either.
Where you would use the rule you’re getting at is: Ŝi diris, ke li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas. In this case, what she said was "Li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas."
EldanarLambetur (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-09 09:45:58
See this example from that page:
Oni vidis, ke la junaj homoj donas al si reciproke la manojn. -- Oni vidis la aferon kaj konstatis: “La junaj homoj donas...”
It's more like, if you are talking indirectly about some observation, then the tenses should reflect the original obversation. It doesn't literally have to be speech.
I see that example as paralleling "Mi vidis, ke li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas"
Which means:
Mi vidis la aferon, kaj konstatis: "Li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas"
So in order to say "I saw that he went out even though it was raining", given that PMEG example, I would indeed say "Mi vidis, ke li eliras malgraŭ tio, ke pluvas"
Maybe when PMEG is saying "nerekta parolo", it's talking about when in your speech you discuss observations indirectly (observation being speech, an event etc.). Not literally that you are indirectly saying what was previously said.
Did I interpret that example correctly?
EldanarLambetur (Montri la profilon) 2012-marto-09 10:32:05
As soon as you preface it with "I saw that..." or "She said that..." etc., you're indirectly describing the observation; you shift the timeframe to the event itself in the second clause (requiring "pluvas").
That's how it looks like it works anyways
