글: 27
언어: English
tomasdeaquino (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오전 4:12:52
In our native languages first learn to speak and do bad, parents and teachers correct us until after we learn to read and write.
When learning a second language, we learn to read and write and in third place we learn to talk.
We continue to think in English and then translating mentally to Esperanto, which also remove fluid that does not allow to form sentences correctly as spoken in Esperanto, but as we do in English.
When learning a second language, we learn to read and write and in third place we learn to talk.
We continue to think in English and then translating mentally to Esperanto, which also remove fluid that does not allow to form sentences correctly as spoken in Esperanto, but as we do in English.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오전 9:57:16
sudanglo:Maybe you can absorb the patterns of the language through reading, but my guess is that the best way to acquire active command of the language is trying to speak it, and in particular trying to express something in Esperanto that you actually want to say, rather than just rehearsing textbook exercises.
xdzt:That's fine in sentiment, but I can't see that working without a feedback loop -- which I don't have. It is easy enough to speak Esperanto to a vacuum, but my errors would persist. I'm not sure how that would help.I think I see where you are coming from, xdzt, you are imagining yourself trying to become proficient in a national language and producing sentences which seem OK but are not actually what a native speaker would say. Hence your need for correction of your mistakes.
Esperanto is somewhat different in that if the sentence is clear, logical and efficient, then it is probably what an experienced Esperantist would say. Esperanto is far less hidebound by idiomatic restrictions.
When I was a young Esperantist, I can't remember being corrected very often by more proficient speakers as I took my first stumbling steps in active production (which is the key to arriving at fluency).
PS Why not have a go in the translation competition that I am about to post in The English Forum?
It was much more like that I would say something and then checking against my knowledge of the grammar I would realise that I had made a mistake or been clumsy or inelegant. Though sometimes I would hear another Esperantist say something and think 'Oh' that's neat', and later incorporate the expression in my repertoire.
If you think of something that you would like to say, and can't decide on reflection whether it is good Esperanto, then just post in the Forum and ask 'Is this the best way to say ..?
There are always some spertuloj monitoring the forums and ready to help.
xdzt (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 2:00:08
sudanglo:PS Why not have a go in the translation competition that I am about to post in The English Forum?I actually already had before I got to this message! It is already surprisingly informative, seeing other, more experienced people's translations, comparing them with mine, and noting the choices they made which seem so obvious and superior in retrospect. The difference between having translated something myself, and observing how someone else did it, and looking at some English and then some Esperanto is huge -- much bigger than I would've thought. It makes me think a good activity at this stage for me would be to find English text which has been translated to Esperanto, take a go at translating it, and then compare with the extant translation to see what I might've done differently.
quieta (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 4:30:34
I saw a post on this forum and decided --just for fun -- to put it into my own words and translate it. I think I would get my point across but I am not satisfied with several parts of the translation or my choice of 'infane', 'mense' and 'senpere'. Would anyone care to make corrections to my endeavor?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
En nia denaska lingvo ni unue lernas paroli kaj uzi ĝin infane. Tiam niaj gepatroj kaj instruistoj korektas kaj gvidas nin ĝis ni lernas legi kaj skribi senerare.
Sed kiam ni lernas duan lingvon, ni unue devas lerni legi kaj skribi, kaj poste ni lernas paroli.
Bedaŭrinde ni emas daŭrigi pensi angle kaj poste mense traduki de angla al esperanto. Tiu malhelpas nian kapablecon por uzi la duan lingvon. Ni devas lerni senpere pensi en la celan lingvon por flue uzi ĝin.
In our native language we first learn to speak and use it as a child. Then our parents and teachers correct and guide us until we learn to read and write without making errors.
But when we learn a second language, we first must learn to read and write and secondly we learn to speak.
Unfortunately we have a tendency to continue to think in English and then mentally translate from English to Esperanto. This hinders our ability to use the second language. We must learn to think directly into the target language to fluently use it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
En nia denaska lingvo ni unue lernas paroli kaj uzi ĝin infane. Tiam niaj gepatroj kaj instruistoj korektas kaj gvidas nin ĝis ni lernas legi kaj skribi senerare.
Sed kiam ni lernas duan lingvon, ni unue devas lerni legi kaj skribi, kaj poste ni lernas paroli.
Bedaŭrinde ni emas daŭrigi pensi angle kaj poste mense traduki de angla al esperanto. Tiu malhelpas nian kapablecon por uzi la duan lingvon. Ni devas lerni senpere pensi en la celan lingvon por flue uzi ĝin.
In our native language we first learn to speak and use it as a child. Then our parents and teachers correct and guide us until we learn to read and write without making errors.
But when we learn a second language, we first must learn to read and write and secondly we learn to speak.
Unfortunately we have a tendency to continue to think in English and then mentally translate from English to Esperanto. This hinders our ability to use the second language. We must learn to think directly into the target language to fluently use it.
erinja (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 8:42:02
kapableco is redundant - use "kapablo" (it already means capability, there's no need to add -ec-)
we say "la angla" when referring to the language
daŭrigi - should be daŭri. daŭrigi means to cause something else to continue, daŭri means to continue
por uzi - this isn't wrong but 'por' isn't necessary here, you could have said "nian kapablon uzi". Traditionally only a noun would come after a preposition, except in very exceptional cases, but that has largely fallen by the wayside today. Zamenhof would have suggested "...nian kapablon por uzo de dua lingvo"
"lerni senpere pensi" - this leaves the reader wondering whether "senpere" describes lerni or pensi. It would be clear if you said "lerni kiel senpere pensi" or "lerni senpere kiel pensi", depending on which meaning you intended (presumably senpere pensi)
pensi en la cela lingvo - remember that en + -n means "into". To think into a language doesn't make a lot of sense.
---------------------
It looks to me like all you need is a little practice with writing in Esperanto. Give yourself some credit. In other threads, you make yourself sound like a hopeless eternal intermediate, unable to progress to an advanced level, but this isn't true at all. Once you fix up a few details, your Esperanto will be quite good. All you need to do is practice.
we say "la angla" when referring to the language
daŭrigi - should be daŭri. daŭrigi means to cause something else to continue, daŭri means to continue
por uzi - this isn't wrong but 'por' isn't necessary here, you could have said "nian kapablon uzi". Traditionally only a noun would come after a preposition, except in very exceptional cases, but that has largely fallen by the wayside today. Zamenhof would have suggested "...nian kapablon por uzo de dua lingvo"
"lerni senpere pensi" - this leaves the reader wondering whether "senpere" describes lerni or pensi. It would be clear if you said "lerni kiel senpere pensi" or "lerni senpere kiel pensi", depending on which meaning you intended (presumably senpere pensi)
pensi en la cela lingvo - remember that en + -n means "into". To think into a language doesn't make a lot of sense.
---------------------
It looks to me like all you need is a little practice with writing in Esperanto. Give yourself some credit. In other threads, you make yourself sound like a hopeless eternal intermediate, unable to progress to an advanced level, but this isn't true at all. Once you fix up a few details, your Esperanto will be quite good. All you need to do is practice.
quieta (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 9:31:20
Thanks, erinja, for the critique. It was very helpful.
The sentence with daŭri vs. daŭrigi was just a silly mistake: I rewrote the sentence, adding 'ni emas...' and removing a direct object. I just didn't catch it.
The last sentence, with 'pensi en la cela lingvo' was deliberate. I was trying to say 'into the target language', so I added the -n. But no, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
We all have items of grammar that tend to confuse us. One thing that gives me trouble is when to use por + infinitive. I know the rule, that if por can be replaced with 'in order to', it is good. I have also heard that if por can be replaced with 'for', it is OK. Like in "Ĉu estas io por manĝi? = Is there anything (for) to eat? That may not work so well but it makes sense sometimes. My trouble with por, I think, stems from studying Spanish years ago. Choosing between por vs. para is difficult for English speakers.
Another thing that is hard for me is correlative pairs. They throw me for a loop. Pairs like 'tion, kion...' and 'tie, kie...' are about 'tiel klara kiel koto' sometimes.
sudanglo's Translation competition 2012 is a very good thread. I can see that, although I made some boo-boos, about 50% of my trouble is lack of confidence. The other 50%, well, it needs work. Keep it going, sudanglo. And thanks.
The sentence with daŭri vs. daŭrigi was just a silly mistake: I rewrote the sentence, adding 'ni emas...' and removing a direct object. I just didn't catch it.
The last sentence, with 'pensi en la cela lingvo' was deliberate. I was trying to say 'into the target language', so I added the -n. But no, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
We all have items of grammar that tend to confuse us. One thing that gives me trouble is when to use por + infinitive. I know the rule, that if por can be replaced with 'in order to', it is good. I have also heard that if por can be replaced with 'for', it is OK. Like in "Ĉu estas io por manĝi? = Is there anything (for) to eat? That may not work so well but it makes sense sometimes. My trouble with por, I think, stems from studying Spanish years ago. Choosing between por vs. para is difficult for English speakers.
Another thing that is hard for me is correlative pairs. They throw me for a loop. Pairs like 'tion, kion...' and 'tie, kie...' are about 'tiel klara kiel koto' sometimes.
sudanglo's Translation competition 2012 is a very good thread. I can see that, although I made some boo-boos, about 50% of my trouble is lack of confidence. The other 50%, well, it needs work. Keep it going, sudanglo. And thanks.
RiotNrrd (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 9:33:52
When I first started, I wrote individual four or five word sentences that contained more errors than your entire translation.
Erinja actually covered more points than I would have thought to; when I first skimmed it, I had no trouble understanding it at all.
As erinja says, you just need more practice writing. This was very well done.
Erinja actually covered more points than I would have thought to; when I first skimmed it, I had no trouble understanding it at all.
As erinja says, you just need more practice writing. This was very well done.
tommjames (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 15일 오후 10:00:24
erinja:daŭrigi - should be daŭri. daŭrigi means to cause something else to continue, daŭri means to continue"ni emas daŭrigi pensi angle" looks fine to me, if he's trying to say "we're inclined to continue thinking in English".
Some examples from La Fundamenta Krestomatio:
"En tiu ĉi sama tempo li daŭrigas labori super siaj kartoj"
"la sorto daŭrigas metadi al li malhelpojn"
"li nun revenis hejmen, por trovi ion, per kio li povus daŭrigi vivi!"
Other examples can be found in Tekstaro with \bdaŭrig\VF \w+i\b
tommjames (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 16일 오전 8:37:35
黄鸡蛋:I don't know whether "continue to think in English" means "daŭre pensi en la angla" or "daŭrigi pensi en la angla / plu pensi en la angla". If it means the former one, then "daŭrigi" should not be used.Yes, if he's aiming for a meaning more along the line of "daŭre pensi en la angla" then that obviously makes 'daŭre' the preferable word. But still if that were the case "daŭrigi labori" doesn't seem to me to change the meaning so much as to make it wrong in this context.
By the way this whole daŭrigi thing gets a little bit complicated by the fact not all seem to agree on the right form, due to some rimarks Zamenhof made:
revo:Zamenhof admonas: "Oni povas diri: la laboro daŭras (estas plue, ne estas finita), sed oni ne povas diri: mi daŭras labori (mi estas plue labori, mi ne estas finita labori). Ankaŭ ne estas bone diri, kiel mi mem bedaŭrinde faris kelkfoje: mi daŭrigas labori (mi igas esti plue labori). Oni devas diri: mi daŭrigas mian laboron (mi igas mian laboron esti plue) aŭ: mi laboras plue."IMO the Zamenhofian edict that "mi daŭras labori" is wrong still seems to widely hold true today, and you will rarely see that form in the literature, though no doubt some do use it. I definitely wouldn't say the same for the comment about "mi daŭrigas labori" though.
Reta Vortaro adds to this that "PIV1 asertas, ke la infinitiva konstruo estas pli kaj pli uzata." I agree and in my view popular usage makes an infinitive acceptable after 'daŭrigi'.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 16일 오전 10:27:35
It is already surprisingly informative, seeing other, more experienced people's translations, comparing them with mine, and noting the choices they made which seem so obvious and superior in retrospect.I think you have identified how it works xdzt.
I would be hard put to explain why it is so, but one does seem to develop a feeling for good style very early on (a lingvosento) - so that one can see immediately that this way of putting something is better than that.
In a strange way one is able to correct oneself, without being explicitly corrected, but just through reflection or observing how someone else would put it.