HB, however you want to label 'inta' linguistically, the whole ata/ita upset was largely about sentences in which most Esperantists would say estis ita and the atistoj wanted to say estis ata.

The implications of inta weren't really involved. There weren't atistoj, as I recall it, who wanted to say estis anta when most would say estis inta.

What was central to the debate was the recognition, that not all verbs are equal.

There are verbs of result without duration like 'perdi', verbs of result and duration like 'konstrui','skribi', and verbs of duration without result like 'koni', 'ami'.

This leads to a predominance of certain forms. Konata is more common than konita. Perdita is more common than perdata.

The whole ata/ita issue is a dead duck now but if you are seriously interested in the history and the arguments, then a good book to consult is La Zamenhofa Esperanto, Simpozio pri ata/ita published in 1961.

A glaring example of an atismo would be La kongreso estis malfermata de la urbestro (pity the poor kongresanoj, would the mayor never shut up)

Forigite