Contribuții/Mesaje: 97
Limbă: English
creedelambard (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 04:30:08
Evildela:Never write "ek de" it's "ekde"See what I mean about correction?
Dankon Evildela
Chainy (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 07:51:04
Gosudar:... and until my Esperanto is "up to" using those sources I just won't sweat the small stuff.Yes, I would just carefully follow the exercises on this site in order to get up to the required standard to start using the sources that are only in Esperanto. The courses here use clear and correct Esperanto - the gap fill exercises are excellent for getting a feel for the grammar system.
darkweasel (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 08:48:18
sudanglo
- Arată profil
- Țară: Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii și al Irlandei de Nord
- Contribuții/Mesaje: 5731
sudanglo (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 11:00:05
Generally aĵo refers to something concrete, tangible. I would lean to the interpretation that a telfonaĵo is something communicated by phone, rather than the act of phoning.
The only hits in the Tekstaro (2) for telefonaĵo come from the same article in Monato (an Esperanto magazine) and my impression is that the term does not have much currency.
The Tekstaro suggests that usage is divided between telefonvoko and telfonalvoko.
Where context has already established that it's a telephone call and not some other type of call I would imagine the telfon would be dropped. In the menu of a poŝtelefono I would expect to see for 'missed calls' something like 'nesukcesaj alvokoj'.
Mostly where English speakers would refer to making a call, Esperanto would simply use the verb 'telefoni'.
erinja (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 11:22:33
So you can say "ekde mardo" (since Tuesday), "ekde 1996" (since 1996), "ekde mia reveno hejmen" (since my return home), or even "ekde antaŭ du jaroj" (since two years ago - two years ago is a point in time). But you can't say *ekde unu semajno or *ekde dek jaroj. It needs to be 'ekde antaŭ unu semajno', 'ekde antaŭ dek jaroj', etc.
If you keep "since" in your mind with "ekde", it helps you avoid using it with a period of time. You'd never say "since ten years" in English, but "since ten years ago" (ekde antaŭ dek jaroj) makes more sense.
I have never seen telefonaĵo used to describe a phone call. I personally say "telefonvoko", and I have never heard Sudanglo's "telefonalvoko", but it makes equally good sense and I would understand it easily if someone else used it.
I agree with sudanglo that we just say "telefoni" rather than "make a telephone call".
Reminds me somewhat of British usage, phoning people. In America it would be much more common to say "call someone"
erinja (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 11:36:17
I was also please to note that when I clicked forward to the next question posted, the Academy gives serious and well-reasoned answers even to ridiculous questions. Well done, Akademio.
No question is too dumb for the Academy, kids. Don't be shy - if a person proposing replacement of "amiko" with "framtlo" gets a serious answer, then surely your question is not too insignificant for them to look at.
sudanglo
- Arată profil
- Țară: Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii și al Irlandei de Nord
- Contribuții/Mesaje: 5731
sudanglo (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 11:42:52
More generally, how does one know whether any statement by anyone regarding correct Esperanto usage is, indeed, correct or incorrect?A very pertinent question.
The national languages are always slowly changing and I suppose the principle criterion for these languages is, whether the usage is considered correct by the majority of native speakers. Changes in such languages creep in slowly and one day you wake up and find that a certain usage, previously a solecism, is now fully embraced.
In the case of Esperanto the situation is a little different. Everything is much more self-conscious. Sometimes things slip into the language without causing a stir. In other cases there is much debate before something becomes acceptable, or is firmly rejectd.
What worries the Esperantists is if something could be seen to undermine the regularity of the language, or be inconsistent with traditional usage.
Arguments often refer to the authorities that another poster kindly gave links to, or even back to Zamehofian usage. But these authorities can be disagreed with, particularly if there is a powerful logical argument for a particular innovation.
Far is not a recent word, it was around at least 30 years ago to my personal knowledge and may be very much older than that. I haven't searched the Tekstaro to find the earliest usage in that corpus.
The issue surrounding fare de and far is that in some sentences plain de produces an uncomfortable ambiguity, and the tradition in Esperanto of clarity and avoidance of ambiguity is very strong indeed.
If you want a good rule, I would suggest - don't use fare de or far where plain de is adequate. This really gets up the noses of the traditionalists.
To judge when to use either of these two forms you probably need to progress beyond the beginner stage to the point where you have a firm grasp of how plain de is used.
erinja (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 11:49:25
It's what I use, when a simple "de" isn't clear, although I would never use "far"*
* I would never *now* use "far", but I did use it as a beginner, before I understood that it is and unnecessary and ungrammatical innovation.
Chainy (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 12:15:51
darkweasel:Note that the Akademio has stated that ekde should be used to mean only "since" and not "for".I've just been reading that explanation from the Academy. The following bit confuses me:
Bonvolu noti, ke en la frazoj, kiujn vi citis, oni povas interpretiBut isn't that precisely how it is intended to be interpreted? And why should 'jam de' be ok for this, and 'ekde' not? They both seem pretty similar to me.
“ekde N jaroj” ankaŭ kiel indikon de komenca tempopunkto kun
la signifo “ekde la tempopunkto kiu okazis antaŭ N jaroj”.
Chainy (Arată profil) 11 august 2012, 12:38:19