Messaggi: 22
Lingua: English
xdzt (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 17:57:32
Also, would a vizitonto be a future guest/visitor? (ie, a visitor you'll receive in the future, rather than a visitor FROM the future
) Hyperboreus (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 18:14:52
xdzt (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 20:18:37
Hyperboreus:Right, I understand all of this, so perhaps I didn't phrase my question very well.xdzt:'viziti' is 'to visit', and 'vizito' is 'a visit', so why does adding an -o to vizit/ant/ make it the visitor instead of the visiting/visitation?"vizitant'" is the present participle. Now adding an -o to it, makes it a noun: vizitanto = "a visiting person/animal/thing" = "a visitor".
Also, would a vizitonto be a future guest/visitor? (ie, a visitor you'll receive in the future, rather than a visitor FROM the future
"vizitont'" is the future participle. Now adding an -o to it, makes it a noun: vizitonto = "a going-to-visit person/animal/thing" = "a future visitor".
For instance:
"Estimataj vizitantoj, bonvolu ne malpurigi tiun ĉi lokon. La vizitontoj dankos vin!"
viziti is the verb 'to visit', and when you add an -o, you turn it into a noun, but the noun isn't a person visiting, it's the visit itself. Why then is it different with the participles?
fajrkapo (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 20:54:03
Hyperboreus (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 21:30:59
erinja (Mostra il profilo) 24 giugno 2012 21:36:26
xdzt:'viziti' is 'to visit', and 'vizito' is 'a visit', so why does adding an -o to vizit/ant/ make it the visitor instead of the visiting/visitation?A vizito *is* a visiting/visitation, in my opinion. How would you differentiate between "a visit" and "a visiting"?
(vizitado = visiting, the prolonged process; maybe that's what you kind of had in mind)
xdzt (Mostra il profilo) 25 giugno 2012 00:43:10
Hyperboreus:Now the participles per se relate always to the actor and not to the action itself, because of the simple fact that they are participles.Thanks for this! As long as they always behave this way, I'm pretty content. I was worried that sometimes it may refer to the action rather than the actor, and that I'd have no clear way to know which except by context.
Hyperboreus (Mostra il profilo) 25 giugno 2012 01:16:09
RiotNrrd (Mostra il profilo) 25 giugno 2012 02:14:08
The use of Esperanto to refer to the language itself constitutes a minor irregularity, but not a particularly troublesome one. On occasion you will find uses of esperanta referring to something pertaining to the language (e.g., esperantaj vortoj), rather than to something relating to hoping, and context will have to be your guide as to which it is.
Tempodivalse (Mostra il profilo) 25 giugno 2012 03:47:58
RiotNrrd:You'll note that even the -anto word "Esperanto" technically refers to a person. It's just shorthand for La Lingvo de Doktoro Esperanto (The Language of Dr. Person-Who-Hopes).Slightly off-topic, I've read somewhere that one way to circumvent this ambiguity is to capitalise E when talking about the language, and leave it lowercase when intending it as a participle. (However, that would appear to go against the general rule of not capitalising adjectives pertaining to proper names.) Does anyone do this?
The use of Esperanto to refer to the language itself constitutes a minor irregularity, but not a particularly troublesome one. On occasion you will find uses of esperanta referring to something pertaining to the language (e.g., esperantaj vortoj), rather than to something relating to hoping, and context will have to be your guide as to which it is.