The point is that in Esperanto there are not such tenses as past perfect or future perfect. There are only three:

past: -is
present: -as
future: -os

Let's forget -us for a while.

The active participle is just an adjective that describes the state of one that is doing the action:

manĝinta = such that ate, and now is not eating (now refers to the point of time in question)

manĝanta = such that is eating now

manĝonta = such that is going to eat, but has not yet started eating

Now we take the verb esti and use it to set a point in time:

Li estis --- past, not now
Li estas --- present, now
Li estos --- future

We add appropriate participle:

Li estis manĝinta - he was such that he had eaten
Li estis manĝanta - he was such that he was eating
Li estis manĝonta - he was such that he was going to eat

See, this refers to the past by the verb esti in the past tense

Li estas manĝinta - he is such that he ate
Li estas manĝanta - he is such that he is eating
Li estas manĝonta - he is such that he will eat

Now we have the present tense.

Li estos manĝinta - he will be such that he will have eaten (? not sure about English)
Li estos manĝanta - he will be such that he will eat in that moment in the future
Li estos manĝonta - he will be such that he will be going to eat, but in that point of time he will not start eating yet.

And this is the normal future tense.

So the verb esti sets the point in time and the participle puts the action relative to that point. In this way the Esperanto compound tenses are way much easier to those of English, French and German. If one understands this system there will be no problems to express the proper action time. Still it is preferable to use simple tenses where applicable.

hebda999:

cxevino:... bla bla bla...
In french, all of these tenses are required for current speaking, and so it is in all romance languages...

Perhaps you could try toki pona...

(And we didn't even mention "mi estas/os/is/us manĝonta" : I am/ i was/ i'll be / i'd be about to eat!...)

As you have noticed, those tenses are being used in all romance languages, but not in Esperanto in the way you have shown it. And don't be rude. Esperanto does not need so many tenses to express clearly most affairs. Just read Zamenhof notes on using tenses in Esperanto (Lingvaj Respondoj).

Have a nice day.

I didn't mean to be rude, just ironic as usual... Anyway I apologize.

Furthermore i'm not an english speaker and i guess i should use an other tongue so that i can know if i'm beeing kind or rude...

You too, by the way, as i see you're living in Poland... What's the point of using english for an international language on a esperantist media ?

And i don't think your quotation is very kind either ("bla bla bla"...)

Have a good nite.

cxevino:
Furthermore i'm not an english speaker and i guess i should use an other tongue so that i can know if i'm beeing kind or rude...

You too, by the way, as i see you're living in Poland... What's the point of using english for an international language on a esperantist media ?

And i don't think your quotation is very kind either ("bla bla bla"...)

Have a good nite.

Please, don't worry. Problems with English are plenty, especially when it comes to politeness. This is the English part of the forum, that is why it is in English within the Esperanto website. There are similar forums in other languages too, so you have no need to complain about it.

My bla bla bla was ironic too - an answer for yours.

Now to the point - I think (and it is my own opinion - nobody is ever obliged to share it with me) that Esperanto is the rightful language on its own and it shouldn't be described by using a foreign grammar system - in this case English or French. English tenses are English, French ones are French - they function well within these languages. Do not bring them to Esperanto that has its own good methods of expressing the time of action - and I think they are way more logical than all the others. Zamenhof himself said that Esperanto compound tenses were not the same as in German or English. In fact they are simple tenses where the verb esti is used and an adjective. Look here:

Mi estis bona
Mi estas bona
Mi estos bona

And now:

Mi estis skribanta
Mi estas skribanta
Mi estos skribanta

Bona and skribanta are adjectives that describe me. The difference is only that that skribanta describes the state of action I am involved into. But apart of that those two sentences are constructed in the same way:

personal pronoun + verb-is/-as/-os + adjective

What is more, they all describe my state in much the same way:

I am (was, will be) good

Or

I am (was, will be) such that I am doing the action of writing.

That is all, thank you

If you were there, you would have killed him.
Se vi estus tie, vi mortigus lin.

If you had been there, you would have killed him.

Se vi estus estinta tie might seem a trifle inelegant. So if you want to reflect the verbal precision of the English phrase, you could say se vi estintus tie, vi estus lin mortiginta.

Also you could say Estinte tie, vi estus lin mortiginta.

Or since 'estinte establishes the time frame Estinte tie, vin lin mortigus. But this formulation leaves itself open to the interpretation if you had been there you would now (or in the future) have murderous intent

hebda999:Bona and skribanta are adjectives that describe me. The difference is only that that skribanta describes the state of action I am involved into. But apart of that those two sentences are constructed in the same way:

Could it be that Esperanto verbs are not "verbs" but "aspect" markers, like in Russian or Chinese?

For some reason the concept of "aspect" eludes me. But I am still trying. What I have read so far is that they refer to a state. For example:

Li ekmanĝis. (Imperfective)
Li manĝadis. (Imperfective)
Li manĝis. (Perfective?)

sudangulo:If you had been there, you would have killed him.

Oops! I often boast I have never studied grammar. Now I think there is no harm in glancing through a grammar book.

sudangulo:vi estintus tie, vi estus lin mortiginta.

I bet had I encountered such a sentence in my Esperanto textbook, I would have never dared to continue.

Demian:

sudangulo:vi estintus tie, vi estus lin mortiginta.

I bet had I encountered such a sentence in my Esperanto textbook, I would have never dared to continue.

That's exactly why these forms are avoided in Esperanto, except in circumstances when you truly need the precision. They're more difficult to parse, and in most cases, you just don't need that much precision, because context tells the story.

-ant rilatas aspekton, -ad ne... nek ek... Ili rilatas la signifon de la verbo, ne la aspekton. Ili ne estas parto de la konjugacio...

If you had been there, you would have killed him.

> Se vi estintus tie, mi mortigintus lin.

Eble oni ne tion diras sed erare (pigre?), ĉar "se vi estus..." signifas nun!...

(-ant has to do with aspect, not -ad and ek... They regard the meaning of the verb, not the aspect. They are not part of conjugation...
May be one speaks this, but it's wrong (lazy?) for "se vi estus" means "if you were now"...

Ĉevino, please edit your message to include an English translation.

cxevino:
> Se vi estintus tie, mi mortintus lin.

you would have died him?

Mi jam senerarigis...