Til indholdet
Svare

Grammar---Although and but

af EoMy, 18. sep. 2012

Meddelelser: 16

Sprog: English

EoMy (Vise profilen) 18. sep. 2012 14.14.03

Saluton

I did not know whether this topic had been discussed before. I would like to know whether Esperanto is also having the same rules as English language. When although is used, the next clause cannot be followed with but clause.

Although it is raining, but I still go out.

It is used in Chinese and Malay. Thus, the learners of these two speakers are very weak in this area. If Esperanto is similar to the Chinese and Malay, wow, it is much easier for them.

Thanks.

::*If there is a thread earlier on this, please pm me and delete this off. I search the page but could not find one, I believed it might have discussed before as I am facing this issue and I need to know the grammar knowldege earlier.

tommjames (Vise profilen) 18. sep. 2012 14.57.26

Esperanto is like English here:

"Kvankam pluvas, mi eliros" = correct
"Kvankam pluvas, sed mi eliros" = wrong.

However you could say "Kvankam pluvas, mi tamen eliros", which conveys a similar idea.

creedelambard (Vise profilen) 18. sep. 2012 21.26.42

tommjames:Esperanto is like English here:

"Kvankam pluvas, mi eliros" = correct
"Kvankam pluvas, sed mi eliros" = wrong.

However you could say "Kvankam pluvas, mi tamen eliros", which conveys a similar idea.
Or maybe you could say "Kvankam pluvas, mi malgraŭ eliros" which I think might be closer to the Chinese/Malay construction.

Evildela (Vise profilen) 18. sep. 2012 21.59.40

Esperanto often uses the construction

kvankam .... tamen ...

The tekstaro verifies this.

More information can be found at: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/subfrazoj/aliaj...

erinja (Vise profilen) 18. sep. 2012 22.09.28

"malgraŭ eliros" doesn't make sense at all to me. Malgraŭ should be followed by a noun, in my opinion.

sudanglo (Vise profilen) 19. sep. 2012 08.33.09

When I first saw this question I was tempted to think that the basic principle was that if you have already expressed the contrastive idea with one word, you don't need to re-express it.

However the normalcy of Kvankam ..., tamen .... undermines that theory.

You might even say Sed tiun nokton, kvankam mi estis jam tre laca, mi tamen konsentis resti ĝis la fino. - which is to express a contrastive idea three times in the same sentence.

Perhaps it is a positional thing which prevents Kvankam ...., sed ..... (And I suspect this restriction is not just limited to English.)

Sed contrasts only with what has gone before. But an initial Kvankam sets up a contrast with what follows. Therefore Kvankam ...., sed .... creates an unresolvable conflict.

darkweasel (Vise profilen) 19. sep. 2012 10.51.24

The real reason is that both kvankam and sed (as well as their English-language equivalents) introduce a subclause, but you cannot have a sentence consisting only of subclauses, there has to be a main clause somewhere (though it may be implicit).

So you can say both kvankam pluvas, mi eliros (main clause is mi eliros) and pluvas, sed mi eliros (main clause is pluvas), but you cannot use a conjunction introducing a subclause in both parts of the sentence.

However tamen does not introduce a subclause, it’s just an adverb that you can use everywhere.

sudanglo (Vise profilen) 19. sep. 2012 12.04.50

The real reason is that both kvankam and sed (as well as their English-language equivalents) introduce a subclause
Not entirely true, DW.

But Mummy I don't want to. Sed Panjo, mi ne volas. Where's the subclause?

darkweasel (Vise profilen) 19. sep. 2012 12.48.25

sudanglo:
The real reason is that both kvankam and sed (as well as their English-language equivalents) introduce a subclause
Not entirely true, DW.

But Mummy I don't want to. Sed Panjo, mi ne volas. Where's the subclause?
IMO this is a subclause with an implicit main clause. (Vi volas, ke mi purigu mian ĉambron,) sed Panjo, mi ne volas or something like that.

tommjames (Vise profilen) 19. sep. 2012 19.05.10

黄鸡蛋:To my understanding, sed introduces a second main clause (the same as kaj) and thus there should be a main clause (or a sentence) before it.
That is my understanding too. A subordinate clause is a clause that cannot itself stand as an independent sentence. "But" isn't a subordinating conjunction as far as I'm aware.

I notice in PMEG's Enkondukiloj de subfrazoj that "sed" is not listed.

But whatever the grammatical reason for it, I think sudanglo's explanation makes good sense, about 'sed' contrasting with what comes before and 'kvankam' with what follows. That logic, IMO, provides a more convincing explanation for why we cannot have "Kvankam pluvas, sed mi eliros", yet we can have "Sed mi eliros, kvankam pluvas". In the latter phrase, "Sed" contrasts with the previous sentence, and "kvankam" with the following "pluvas".

Tilbage til start