Skip to the content
Reply

Building a computational grammar for Esperanto, will need linguistic assistance (questions)

by juliaH, April 27, 2012

Messages: 46

Language: English

RiotNrrd (User's profile) May 1, 2012, 5:01:09 PM

sudanglo:Kredu min, mi estas pravo!
Heh. I'm tempted to update the Lernu vortaro.

Eo-English

Pravo (prav-o)
sudanglo

darkweasel (User's profile) May 1, 2012, 5:34:03 PM

RiotNrrd:
sudanglo:Kredu min, mi estas pravo!
Heh. I'm tempted to update the Lernu vortaro.

Eo-English

Pravo (prav-o)
sudanglo
Maybe something for next April Fools’ Day? ridulo.gif

TatuLe (User's profile) May 1, 2012, 9:19:03 PM

sudanglo:But for dormo to be something concrete which a man could be would require a category change and is not something that could be brought about by technological invention.
Maybe "la viro tie estas dormo" could work if viro is used non-literally:

Tiun butonon, kiu havas bildon de viro, vi premu, se vi volas voki min.
Ĉi tiu butono, en kiu estas alia viro, ebligas al vi eliri la ĉambron.
La virino-butono apud ĝi ŝlosas la pordon.
Kaj tiu viro estas por manĝo.
Tiu virino ŝaltas la lumon.
Kaj la viro tie estas dormo - ĝi pretigas vian liton.

juliaH (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 9:11:59 AM

Hi Everyone,

Here comes 2 questions about adverbs.

1.
The first one is a really basic question, that surprisingly enough have been hard to read out from the grammar books, and where the grammar checkers don't give me conclusive answers.

Question: It seems that a derived adverb can take n-finaĵon to show measurement, time etc, but does it ever agree with e.g. an indirect nominal subject when acting as a verbal complement (that is, in an object clause, where the subject of the verb is part of the object of the main clause)?

Example: "I saw [them run/running very fast]"

- Mi vidis ilin kuri/kurantajn tre rapide
- Mi vidis ilin kuri/kurantajn tre rapiden

2.
I am a bit confused about the word order with respect to adverbs. The grammars seem to have quite firm but not always unanimous recommendations about it, and their examples are not conclusive.

Question: Is it always correct to put the adverb before whatever it modifies, and correct to put it after just in case the meaning does not get ambiguous (with regard to what word or words it modifies)?

Amike,
Julia

sudanglo (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 9:58:09 AM

Example: "I saw [them run/running very fast]"

- Mi vidis ilin kuri/kurantan tre rapide
- Mi vidis ilin kuri/kurantan tre rapiden
The following are permissible forms in E.

1. Mi vidis ilin kuri tre rapide
2. Mi vidis ilin kurantaj tre rapide
3. Mi vidis ilin kurantajn tre rapide

The difference between 1 and 2. is marginal. In the case of 1. the action is referred to as a whole, in 2. the action is presented as incomplete.

An example with another verb brings out the difference between 1. and 2.

Mi vidis lin fumi 3 cigaredojn.

While you were watching he got though 3 cigarettes. Perhaps he smoked them simultaneously, but unlikely.

Mi vidis lin fumanta 3 cigaredojn.

In this case, it is not certain that you watched him until he had finished, and maybe he had all 3 cigarettes in his mouth at the same time.

Now let me turn to the last example of the trio. You will come across this usage far less frequently. You may encounter different opinions from Esperantists on when it should be used.

The agreement with ilin now presents the qualification as more characterizing them. It is closer to seeing running people rather than to seeing people running.

There is a fourth translation of 'I saw them running' which is the case in which you were running and not the people. This is rendered as Mi vidis ilin kurante.

sudanglo (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 10:06:49 AM

In general there is a great deal of freedom in the positioning of the adverb, so that Li rapide kuris and li kuris rapide may be both encountered. However sometimes the position does make a significant difference.

An example I recall from previous forum discussions is.

1. Mi ofte volis morti (you are depressed).

2. Mi volis ofte morti (not possible you can only die once).

sudanglo (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 10:12:52 AM

Nice try, Tatule, but not very convincing. Yes I can imagine that you might have a button on a robot to put it into power down or sleep mode.

But this button is liable to be labelled 'dormi' and not 'dormo', and if it bears an icon, a picture of a man would seem an odd choice.

juliaH (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 10:44:53 AM

sudanglo:The following are permissible forms in E.

1. Mi vidis ilin kuri tre rapide
2. Mi vidis ilin kurantaj tre rapide
3. Mi vidis ilin kurantajn tre rapide

Now let me turn to the last example of the trio. You will come across this usage far less frequently. You may encounter different opinions from Esperantists on when it should be used.

The agreement with ilin now presents the qualification as more characterizing them. It is closer to seeing running people rather than to seeing people running.
This is really important, do I get you correctly that according to your opinion, in case 2 (no object agreement), the participle would act more as a verb describing an action the object is performing (as a process), while in case 3 (with agreement) it would act more as an adjectival modifier of the pronoun ili(n), more or less describing the state they are in, or rather how you perceive them to be, quite closely connected to "Mi vidis la kurintojn", maybe even adverbally modified as "Mi vidis la tre rapide kurintojn"?

darkweasel (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 10:51:25 AM

sudanglo:
But this button is liable to be labelled 'dormi' and not 'dormo', and if it bears an icon, a picture of a man would seem an odd choice.
Maybe a sleeping man...

sudanglo (User's profile) May 2, 2012, 11:55:32 AM

do I get you correctly that according to your opinion, in case 2 (no object agreement), the participle would act more as a verb describing an action the object is performing (as a process), while in case 3 (with agreement) it would act more as an adjectival modifier of the pronoun ili(n)
Something like that. But Julia as I said, you might find different opinions about this.

It would not be considered an important point by Esperantists, I think, and no eyebrows would be too raised if you used agreement. I think, if you look this point up in PMEG it says something like vidis iun foriranta would mean vidis ke iu foriris, and vidis iun forirantan would mean vidis kiam/dum iu foriris. The chap to ask is Dark Weasel who is very good at finding specific references in PMEG.

I think there is a nuanced distinction and also that mostly you would hear non-agreeement after a verb of perception. However I have seen an analysis of early texts in Esperanto, from which it was argued that there wasn't much of a distinction - if I remember correctly. But the language evolves.

I can confidently assert that Esperantists would not say mi vidis kurantajn ilin, but you could say mi vidis kurantan homon and mi vidis homon kurantan, and of course mi vidis homon kuranta.

Edit: here is a link to the Ken Miner article on the difference between kuri kuranta kurantan. I am not saying I agree completely with his conclusions

Back to the top