Jordan is certainly right about the ruckus that was caused by the atistoj.

I distinctly remember buying a couple of thrillers years ago that had been translated from Danish and German, and thinking of asking for my money back when I discovered atismoj in them.

However to say that Esperanto has no true passive seems hair-splitting.

La preĝejo estis konstruita en 1349, seems to me a perfectly acceptable passive historical fact, and leaves no doubt about when the church was built.

You wouldn't say that English has no passive because you can also express the idea that in 1349 the church was under construction (konstruata - being built).

La Unua Libro estis eldonita en 1887. And it is factually incorrect to say that it was eldonita in 1888 or 1889.

If there was a question on Who wants to be a Millionaire En kiu jaro eldoniĝis la Unua Libro de Esperanto and you answered Ĝi estis eldonita en 1905, you would lose.

Your question is absolutely a case study in the differences between the -ata and -ita aspect. It's a perfect example to show the differences, actually. Mangata (-ata ending) essentially means "being eaten", whereas manĝita (-ita ending) means "already eaten". The rule of thumb I follow is this---if I can stick the word "jam" in there without any clash of meaning, then it's -ita. If I can think in "being" or "in the process of being" before the past participle, then it's -ita. If someone disagrees with me on that, I'd love to hear your thoughts, but it seems to work for me.

Suzumiya:Good afternoon!

In the English sentence below, the participle eaten has a habitual/aorist meaning:

The turkey is a North American bird, traditionally eaten at Thanskgiving.

But the participle eaten can also be used to refer to something that happened in the past:

While walking in the desert, I came upon the body of a dead dog, apparently eaten some time ago.

In the second sentence, the eating happened only once, in the past, and not on a regular basis.

Not all languages have this type of double meaning to their participles. What does Esperanto do in those cases?

Thanks in advance.

Forigite

Polaris:Your question is absolutely a case study in the differences between the -ata and -ita aspect. It's a perfect example to show the differences, actually. Mangata (-ata ending) essentially means "being eaten", whereas manĝita (-ita ending) means "already eaten". The rule of thumb I follow is this---if I can stick the word "jam" (already) in there without any clash of meaning, then it's -ita. If I can think in "being" or "in the process of being" or "usually/habitually" before the past participle, then it's -ata. If someone disagrees with me on that, I'd love to hear your thoughts, but it seems to work for me.

Suzumiya:Good afternoon!

In the English sentence below, the participle eaten has a habitual/aorist meaning:

The turkey is a North American bird, traditionally eaten at Thanskgiving.

But the participle eaten can also be used to refer to something that happened in the past:

While walking in the desert, I came upon the body of a dead dog, apparently eaten some time ago.

In the second sentence, the eating happened only once, in the past, and not on a regular basis.

Not all languages have this type of double meaning to their participles. What does Esperanto do in those cases?

Thanks in advance.

if I can stick the word "jam" in there without any clash of meaning, then it's -ita. If I can think in "being" or "in the process of being" before the past participle, then it's -ata

Yes and no, Polaris. You can also use jam in front of an -ata word.

Suppose you were discussing the spread of Esperanto and somebody thought it had not spread outside Europe, then you could say Esperanto estas jam parolata sur ĉiuj 5 kontinentoj.

As in English, you might say that something is already being done as you spoke.

"Kiam la domo estis detruata, du viroj mortis."
Means: During the destruction, two men lost their lives.

"Kiam la domo estis detruita, du viroj mortis."
Means: At the momento when they finished demolishing the house, two men died.

HB, you can in principle adopt a perspective in relation to any action that it is incomplete.

However there are many verbs which are naturally verbs of result and not duration. I would think of detrui as one of those.

So your second sentence means for me that there were two casualties in the bomb blast, not that two men died from shock on realising they had lost their home.

La domo estis konstruata is perfectly possible (if the meaning is required) since, in contrast to destruction, building can take some time.

Mi nur estas skribinta la leteron kaj mi iros hejmen.

Kiam mi estos skribinta la leteron, mi iros hejmen

"Mi estus manĝinta, se mi malsatus." does not mean "I would have eaten", but "I would finish my dish, if I were hungry.".

I would have eaten if I had been hungry. This has nothing to do with whether you left your plate clean. You may stop eating when you feel you have had enough.

Manĝi is a verb of duration and result.

The interpretation, depends on the verb and other contextual matters. Mi manĝis sufiĉe means I have had enough. (Also I dined adequately).

La telefono sonoris dum ni manĝis means the telephone rang during your meal (whilst you were eating).

I can't see any justification for saying Mi estus manĝinta does not map to I would have eaten. If you want the meaning I would have been eating then you would have to say mi estintus manĝanta to express it in the verb.

Good point, Sudanglo---the "action in progress" aspect can, indeed fit with "already"

sudanglo:

"Kiam la domo estis detruata, du viroj mortis."
Means: During the destruction, two men lost their lives.

"Kiam la domo estis detruita, du viroj mortis."
Means: At the momento when they finished demolishing the house, two men died.

HB, you can in principle adopt a perspective in relation to any action that it is incomplete.

However there are many verbs which are naturally verbs of result and not duration. I would think of detrui as one of those.

So your second sentence means for me that there were two casualties in the bomb blast, not that two men died from shock on realising they had lost their home.

La domo estis konstruata is perfectly possible (if the meaning is required) since, in contrast to destruction, building can take some time.

Forigite