Příspěvky: 95
Jazyk: English
Chainy (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 12:10:39
tommjames:... but I would agree that there is a certain "semantic tension" there, as sudanglo puts it. Du jaroj has to be read as la komenca tempopunkto de du jaroj, or antaŭ du jarojI can understand that some people might experience a certain 'semantic tension' regarding 'ekde' in this context (particularly if they focus on the English word since), but I still don't understand why those same people wouldn't then feel the same tension in relation to 'Mi lernas Esperanton (jam) de du jaroj'.
Sudanglo tried to explain this in terms of 'characterisation', but this doesn't fully make sense to me. Surely the fundamental thinking behind '(jam) de du jaroj' equates to the German expression 'seit zwei Jahren'. If you focus on the English 'since two years', then of course it sounds weird, but '(jam) de du jaroj' shows that this is an acceptable concept in Esperanto.
Chainy (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 12:30:42
Ŝi loĝis en Parizo de du jaroj = She had been living in Paris for two years = Sie wohnte seit zwei Jahren in Paris.
According to the Academy, there could be a misunderstanding if you change the above to:
"Ŝi loĝis en Parizo ekde du jaroj"
- the Academy suggests that someone might then interpret the above as meaning that she started living in Paris two years ago (from now). But, if one accepts that 'ekde' refers to a specific point in time, then surely that point of time shouldn't move, which is the case if you understand it in relation to NOW! So, there's surely no room for misunderstanding, certainly no more than if one were to replace 'ekde' by just 'de'. The point in time is clearly fixed in relation to the time indicated by the context of the sentence.
So again, everyone accepts '(jam) de', but I continue to be puzzled by the disapproval of 'ekde'. As PAG and PMEG point out, the addition of 'ek-' is just a means of highlighting the function of 'de' in the sentence, to make it stand out from other uses of 'de'.
According to the Academy, there could be a misunderstanding if you change the above to:
"Ŝi loĝis en Parizo ekde du jaroj"
- the Academy suggests that someone might then interpret the above as meaning that she started living in Paris two years ago (from now). But, if one accepts that 'ekde' refers to a specific point in time, then surely that point of time shouldn't move, which is the case if you understand it in relation to NOW! So, there's surely no room for misunderstanding, certainly no more than if one were to replace 'ekde' by just 'de'. The point in time is clearly fixed in relation to the time indicated by the context of the sentence.
So again, everyone accepts '(jam) de', but I continue to be puzzled by the disapproval of 'ekde'. As PAG and PMEG point out, the addition of 'ek-' is just a means of highlighting the function of 'de' in the sentence, to make it stand out from other uses of 'de'.
Chainy (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 12:41:05
sudanglo:This confirms my analysis of the difference between amiko de miaj lernejaj jaroj and amiko ekde miaj lernejaj jaroj.I still don't really see how that comparison has any relevance. Both instances of 'de' relate to a noun, rather than to a verb.
sudanglo:Yes, this was my attempt to work out what the Academy meant by a possible misunderstanding, but as I've now mentioned in a subsequent post, I'm not sure I see the problem any more.
I think that the point you were trying to make about the tense (past or present) of the subsequent verb is a bit of a red herring.
Changing from Mi multjare ne vidis lin to Mi multjare estas Esperantisto has no effect of the meaning of multjare - de multaj jaroj is in effect an equivalent of multjare.
tommjames (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 12:53:21
Chainy:Well yes, that's why I used the word "regardless"tommjames:So in my view it would generally be better to do what Shlafer proposes and use "antaŭ", regardless of any perceived chance of misunderstanding with regards to continuation of the action into the present.As far as I understand, the advice from the Academy was not that 'antaŭ' should be used to avoid such misunderstanding, but that one should use '(jam) de du jaroj' instead of 'ekde du jaroj.'
However Shlafer does say oni povas tute eviti la riskon de miskompreno uzante la esprimon “ekde antaŭ N jaroj”.
I wouldn't use antaŭ to "avoid confusion", as I don't really see any confusion to be avoided. I must confess, I'm not entirely sure I grasp what Shlafer is referring to there. I would just use the helping antaŭ on the grounds of general semantic clarity; when referencing a point in time, actually supply a point in time rather than relying on 'subkompreno'.
Chainy:but I still don't understand why those same people wouldn't then feel the same tension in relation to 'Mi lernas Esperanton (jam) de du jaroj'.I hear you. Personally I feel that ekde, jam de, and simply de alone, each have a semantic leaning towards a point in time, though I do feel that it's somewhat stronger in the case of ekde, for some reason. My guess would be that tension results from the relative frequency of these expressions in Esperanto, as well as influence from national languages.
I note from Shlafer's response that some languages (French and German are given as examples) use the same word for ekde and jam de, but that English is not among them. Sudanglo also pointed out that ekde with a duration is far less common than ekde with a point in time. Surely that has an effect too.
ofnayim (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 17:26:23
As an English speaker I am mystified by adverbs. Yes, they exist, but unless one is a grammarian or linguist, who cares? To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.” I share this obliviousness for the need for adverbs. With the exception of the “ly” suffix, I am seldom aware of when I use a word or phrase as an adverb. (Is “seldom” an adverb? Is the phrase, “as an adverb” an adverb? ) This is fine for colloquial English, but when it comes to Esperanto, I am at a distinct disadvantage. Adverbs are used all over the place. I have trouble on both ends of the language. As a speaker and writer and I seldom incorporate them into my usage as I should, and as a reader/listener, when I do encounter adverbs, and they are everywhere, my comprehension falters. Can anyone recommend an approach to how I can better employ adverbs and understand their usage?
EldanarLambetur
- Ukázat profil
- Země: Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska
- Příspěvky: 272
EldanarLambetur (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 18:55:52
Adverbs aren't that well defined a class of words in most languages. In this, Esperanto will actually be your friend, given that almost all adverbs will simply be those words that end in "e". It'll help you separate adverbs (e-words) from other classes of words like adjectives. And take heart, because it'll help you draw comparisons with English, and learn more about English too (because you'll learn where Esperanto and English are similar/dissimilar).
If the only other language you're going to learn for a little while is going to be Esperanto, then I'd mostly ignore the word "adverb" and its definitions and uses in English, and instead focus on "e-words". Learn Esperanto to the level that you can read PMEG passably, and read its nice clear and simple definitions about what you can and cannot do with "e-words" (and later on, what you can and cannot do with that small number of words that can act like "e-words" but don't end in "e" ).
Then when it comes to English, you'll start to see parallels and differences between "e-words" and "ly" words and other adverbs you might recognise. You'll get a feel for how an adverb can function. But it'll be a little different whatever language you learn of course.
A good starting rule of thumb may be:
1. a-words describe o-words (bruna ĉapelo)
2. e-words cannot describe o-words, but they can describe everything else.
3. Usually e-words describe verbs (words ending in -i -as -is -us -u) or the whole sentence in a general way. (li rapide kuris / miaopinie, ŝi estas bela)
If the only other language you're going to learn for a little while is going to be Esperanto, then I'd mostly ignore the word "adverb" and its definitions and uses in English, and instead focus on "e-words". Learn Esperanto to the level that you can read PMEG passably, and read its nice clear and simple definitions about what you can and cannot do with "e-words" (and later on, what you can and cannot do with that small number of words that can act like "e-words" but don't end in "e" ).
Then when it comes to English, you'll start to see parallels and differences between "e-words" and "ly" words and other adverbs you might recognise. You'll get a feel for how an adverb can function. But it'll be a little different whatever language you learn of course.
A good starting rule of thumb may be:
1. a-words describe o-words (bruna ĉapelo)
2. e-words cannot describe o-words, but they can describe everything else.
3. Usually e-words describe verbs (words ending in -i -as -is -us -u) or the whole sentence in a general way. (li rapide kuris / miaopinie, ŝi estas bela)
RiotNrrd (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 20:42:13
ofnayim:To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.”That is absolutely untrue.
An American is very, very unlikely to respond to the question "Are you evil?" with the answer "No, I am well."
Vestitor (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 22:34:38
RiotNrrd:Were you being satirical? Well it was funny anyway.ofnayim:To most American speakers, there is no distinction between the phrases, “I am good,” and “I am well.”That is absolutely untrue.
An American is very, very unlikely to respond to the question "Are you evil?" with the answer "No, I am well."
But in the sense of meaning 'I am well' 'all's fine with me' I'd agree that in (certain parts of.?) the U.S. both terms are completely interchangeable.
RiotNrrd (Ukázat profil) 16. srpna 2012 23:57:08
Vestitor:Were you being satirical? Well it was funny anyway.Not at all. I was demonstrating that there is a very clear distinction between "well" and "good", in a way that even people who claim they can't tell the difference, can actually tell the difference.
In the sense of "all is fine with me", the only place "good" and "well" are interchangeable is in informal, colloquial speech, or among people with lower levels of education. In standard English - the kind you'd read in the newspaper, for example, or that is expected to be used in ordinary business correspondence - the difference is very clear. You won't read something along the lines of "How are you? I'm good" in the newspaper unless the editor is trying to get fired*.
---------------
* Yeah, OK, there probably are some circumstances in which you'd see it. Quotations, comics, reproductions of informal or colloquial speech, in letters to the editor (i.e., written by someone who isn't expected to produce professionally written material), and so on. But in a piece of straight journalism - if an editor let something like that pass, he'd be a laughingstock. Anywhere in the country.
Smartyy (Ukázat profil) 17. srpna 2012 14:05:53
So, has this become a question thread of everyone, or am I hijacking it right now? Because if I am, I apologize! And will start my own thread. I only have a quick question:
I'm going through the basic course, bildoj kaj demandoj. As you can see from my account, I've been here for four years, but I haven't touched esperanto in.. forever. But I'm getting back into it and learning it the right way this time, not halfway doing it.
Anyway, my question is this:
If you say: Kion manĝas Marko?
Then, according to the course, you are essentially asking "what is Marko eating?" to which, the answer is "Marko manĝas pomon."
But, what if I want to ask "What is eating Marko?" - the only thing it gives is "Kiun manĝas la pomon?" - What is the apple eating? Would it simply be "Kio manĝas Marko?"
I'm trying not to confuse myself by translating things back to english, since obviously "Kion manĝas x" isn't a perfect translation from "What is x eating?"
I also wonder if it's proper to instead say "Mark manĝas kion?" ... I know word order doesn't matter too much in Esperanto, but I have read that.. there's generally an accepted way, and a less accepted way. Is this acceptable? To my mind, this makes more sense, since it's in the order that English is.
Thanks so much!
I'm going through the basic course, bildoj kaj demandoj. As you can see from my account, I've been here for four years, but I haven't touched esperanto in.. forever. But I'm getting back into it and learning it the right way this time, not halfway doing it.
Anyway, my question is this:
If you say: Kion manĝas Marko?
Then, according to the course, you are essentially asking "what is Marko eating?" to which, the answer is "Marko manĝas pomon."
But, what if I want to ask "What is eating Marko?" - the only thing it gives is "Kiun manĝas la pomon?" - What is the apple eating? Would it simply be "Kio manĝas Marko?"
I'm trying not to confuse myself by translating things back to english, since obviously "Kion manĝas x" isn't a perfect translation from "What is x eating?"
I also wonder if it's proper to instead say "Mark manĝas kion?" ... I know word order doesn't matter too much in Esperanto, but I have read that.. there's generally an accepted way, and a less accepted way. Is this acceptable? To my mind, this makes more sense, since it's in the order that English is.
Thanks so much!