Messages: 19
Language: English
tommjames (User's profile) December 15, 2012, 1:24:39 PM
Kirilo81:'-intus' as past irrealis is neither ZamenhofianIncorrect. Zamenhof used this form, and it is in the Fundamento.
Kirilo81:nor usefulIt is useful when context is not sufficiently clear for a simple form, or when use of extra time words would be inelegant. Admittedly that's not all the time, or even especially often, but either way it's wrong to call that form useless.
Kirilo81:nor desireableThat's arguable, but personally I have zero interest in this argument because I'm quite happy to speak actual Esperanto, as it is spoken. I have no desire to make the language conform to my own linguistic sensibilities.
Vilius (User's profile) December 15, 2012, 4:00:00 PM
orthohawk:It may be just me, but I would say, "Mi dezirus, ke vie ne faru tion."It's still ambiguous. From what you wrote, I am not able to figure out which meaning you have in mind ("wouldn't have said" or "wouldn't say in future" ).
Kirilo81 (User's profile) December 15, 2012, 7:20:56 PM
tommjames:"Mi ne farus la eraron, se li antaŭe dirus al mi la veron (aŭ se li estus dirinta al mi la veron)." (Ekzercaro, §24)Kirilo81:'-intus' as past irrealis is neither ZamenhofianIncorrect. Zamenhof used this form, at it is in the Fundamento.
This sentence and the whole paragraph deal with relative temporal anteriority, which is the function of '-inta'. The actual time the utterance refers to must always be fixed by the form of 'esti'.
Of course I don't say that '-intus' can't mean past irrealis, it is just one of its three functions (pluperfect, perfect and future perfect irrealis), and probably the most common even with correct usage.
tommjames:It were useful, if '-int-' expressed past tense, but it doesn't, unless you assign a new function to this special construction. A simple adverb of time does the trick much better.Kirilo81:nor usefulIt is useful when context is not sufficiently clear for a simple form, or when use of extra time words would be inelegant. Admittedly that's not all the time, or even especially often, but either way it's wrong to call that form useless.
tommjames:And I want to keep Esperanto regular, and that's not just my sensibility, but the actual norm fixed in the Fundamento.Kirilo81:nor desireableThat's arguable, but personally I have zero interest in this argument because I'm quite happy to speak actual Esperanto, as it is spoken. I have no desire to make the language conform to my own linguistic sensibilities.
It would be a shame if after let's say 200 years of proposing Esperanto to the world there came the decisive moment and we had to say "Yes, it's regular, except for '-int-' which does mean something else with '-us' than with '-as/-is/-os' or with "ecological" which is 'naturprotekta' but 'eko-' in compounds etc. - We're sorry, but sometimes we were just to lazy to think about our language use".
We (the modern intellectual society) do care about not accelerating climate change, we do care about spreading peace instead of force, we should also care about not making international communication harder than it could be.
tommjames (User's profile) December 15, 2012, 8:17:38 PM
Kirilo81:It were useful, if '-int-' expressed past tense, but it doesn'tIt doesn't matter that -INT shows aspect (completeness) rather than timing (pastness). The point is that in phrases like "mi ne estus farinta tion", the "estus" is assumed to concern the present, as per the quote from PMEG in the thread I linked to. And of course, relative to the present something 'complete' can only have occured in the past.
The prezencigo of "estus" and use of Estus X-inta phrases for the past conditional may well be a result of influence from Western European languages that tend to make finer timing distinctions than are strictly necessary. I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it since it's a well establised feature of the language and isn't going to go away. (Incedentally this also invalidates the comparison with 'far', which is no more than an experimental word that appears to have completely failed to catch on).
sudanglo (User's profile) December 16, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
I wish you wouldn't do thatTranslating this isn't just a matter of following the English pattern with appropriate tenses. The meaning seems to me to be that the other party is in the habit of doing something that the first party finds annoying and is complaining about.
This meaning has to be distinguished from telling someone that you don't want him/her to do something in the future.
It is quite clear from searches in the Tekstaro that deziras, ke is normally followed by an -u verb. However there seems to be a greater choice of verb form after dezirus, ke.
As to the best translation 'I wish you wouldn't', I hesitate. But something along the lines of 'Mi preferus se vi povus rezisti vian kutiman tenton' might do. I leave it to the Forum to improve on that.
I wish you wouldn't have done thatThis doesn't seem to me to be even correct English (though it might be OK in certain parts of America). In British English it would be 'I wish you hadn't done that'
Th minimal translation might be Mi dezirus ke vi ne faris tion. But I would prefer something with -int here - perhaps Mi pli kontentus se vi ne estus tion farinta
sudanglo (User's profile) December 16, 2012, 10:56:31 AM
There is no question about the usefulness of 'fare de'. Personally I find 'far' more elegant.
sudanglo (User's profile) December 16, 2012, 11:04:37 AM
I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it (estus -inta) since it's a well established feature of the language and isn't going to go awayAbsolutely, Tom
Kirilo81 (User's profile) December 16, 2012, 1:36:56 PM
tommjames:I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it since it's a well establised feature of the language and isn't going to go away.You're totally right that it is an established feature, but I don't want to "complain", but to draw people's attention to tho problem. It has come as an unconscious calque, and it may go by a conscious decision not to use it any more.
tommjames:The prezencigo of "estus" and use of Estus X-inta phrases for the past conditional may well be a result of influence from Western European languages that tend to make finer timing distinctions than are strictly necessary.I think we have to distinguish between the commonly used terminology and the real notions. "Present conditional" hardly ever has something to do with present tense, but is either set in the future or it is valid at every time (gnomic). It expresses something you can do, but you effectively won't do. On the other hand "past conditional" expresses something you could, but you didn't do.
This is miles away from the temporal anteriority the Esperanto '-inta' participle expresses.
mihxil (User's profile) December 21, 2012, 8:13:47 PM
Ferdinand Cesarano:(on grounds both Fundementisma (we may not create new prepositons)Can someone please quote the relevant 'rules' from the Fundamanto which say this. It seems I can't find it.