My son and I are discussing global warming. I have tried using a number of things I have learned but not used before, so any corrections or suggested improvements are very welcome! I wish to say to him,

"It may indeed be hubris to think we are solely responsible, but I suspect that through the calculus of unintended consequences, we are at least speeding it up."

Povu ja esti fierego pensi, ke ni estus sole responsaj, sed mi suspektas, ke per la kalkulo de senintencaj konsekvencoj ni estas almenaǔ plirapidiganta ĝin.

Warmest thanks once again!

jkph00:"It may indeed be hubris to think we are solely responsible, but I suspect that through the calculus of unintended consequences, we are at least speeding it up."

Povu ja esti fierego pensi, ke ni estus sole responsaj, sed mi suspektas, ke per la kalkulo de senintencaj konsekvencoj ni estas almenaǔ plirapidiganta ĝin.

A full day now and no corrections or suggestions – did I really get it right?? That would be unexpected – but grand if so!! Sudanglo or Erinja, any imprimatur (or corrections)?

There are a couple of errors, I was waiting for someone else to jump in

It would have to be "plirapidigantaj", plural to match with "ni". But in fact this is, in my opinion, an overly literal translation from English. We frequently use these present progressive forms in English ("we are speeding") but they are used much more rarely and selectively in Esperanto. Also, the word "responsa" is a rare usage; "respondeca" is the usual word for responsible.

I'd say it as "Povus ja esti fierego pensi ke ni estas sole respondecaj, sed mi suspektas ke per la kalkulo de senintencaj konsekvencoj, ni almenaŭ plirapidigas ĝin"

I don't actually love the use of "ĝin". "Ĝi" normally replaces a specific noun that is clear through context. Usually an actual concrete thing. But "plirapidigas tion" also sounds strangely vague here so I guess I can't think of a better word.

jkph00:"It may indeed be hubris to think we are solely responsible, but I suspect that through the calculus of unintended consequences, we are at least speeding it up."

"Homaro estas tutsole kulpa por atmosfera varmiĝo," eble estas aroganta deklaro. Tamen mi supozas ke pro neintencita konsekvenco de la agoj de homaro, la mondo ja varmiĝas pli rapide."

There is probably a widely recognised Esperanto term for 'global warming'. However don't they all call it 'climate change' now?

Eble oni tro emfazas nian rolon en la multe prikomentita varmiĝo de la mondo, sed mi suspektas ke almenaŭ ni kulpas pri akcelo de la proceso, tamen senintence, kompreneble.

erinja:…It would have to be "plirapidigantaj", plural to match with "ni".

Rats. I will insist on missing that "j," won't I, though at least more seldom than at the beginning.

erinja:But in fact this is, in my opinion, an overly literal translation from English. We frequently use these present progressive forms in English ("we are speeding" ) but they are used much more rarely and selectively in Esperanto... I'd say it as "Povus ja esti fierego pensi ke ni estas sole respondecaj, sed mi suspektas ke per la kalkulo de senintencaj konsekvencoj, ni almenaŭ plirapidigas ĝin"

This was the first time I tried using such an expression as I've just started trying to get my head around David Jordan's suggested usages for the various participles in Being Colloquial in Esperanto. I appreciate your insight. When do you prefer them over the simple tenses?

Erinja, I notice you did not put a comma before "ke." I have been doing so because of using the lingvohelpilo where it often appears as a suggested correction. Does it not matter really? Or is one form preferable to the other?

erinja:Also, the word "responsa" is a rare usage; "respondeca" is the usual word for responsible.

Noted. Thank you!

erinja:I don't actually love the use of "ĝin". "Ĝi" normally replaces a specific noun that is clear through context. Usually an actual concrete thing. But "plirapidigas tion" also sounds strangely vague here so I guess I can't think of a better word.

I recall the recent conversation concerning "tio/tiu" here on the forum. I will remember your description of ĝin especially as replacement for a specific noun.

Thank you once again! I learned much!

sudanglo:Eble oni tro emfazas nian rolon…

I always enjoy the British penchant for understatement that so enables polite bluntness. It is delightful. Your expression above versus my, "Povu esti ja fierego…" is a wonderful example of that. I will certainly remember that phrasing.

I just noticed, Sudanglo, that Erinja changed "povu" to "povus" in her suggestions to me. I had meant to say, "It may [be]," so I used "povu" rather than "povus," since "povus" suggested to me "could [be]." Was I incorrect? (I should have asked Erinja but missed it.)

sudanglo:… en la multe prikomentita…

"Pri/koment/it/a." What a handsome example of using a past passive participle that is (and very helpful to me)! I understand it to parse as "concerning [which]/comment[ing]/already happened." Elegant and concise! If I said, "estos prikomentita," would it mean "concerning [which]/comment[ing]/will already have happened?"

sudanglo:… sed mi suspektas ke almenaŭ ni kulpas pri akcelo de la proceso, tamen senintence, kompreneble.

I see your preference for simple, active voice verbs rather than the noun constructions I used. It is cleaner and more direct. My hat is truly off to you. Thank you for taking the time to teach me.

J_Marc:…"Homaro estas tutsole kulpa por atmosfera varmiĝo," eble estas aroganta deklaro...

I notice, J_Marc, that you suggest "eble estas" for "may be." Is an adverbial construction preferred over a verb tense stylistically in Esperanto? I'm trying to read as much Esperanto as I can to learn such things, but still have a LONG way to go.

I'm hoping to clarify soon if I mistranslated "may be" by "povu esti." That -u construction for other than a command remains puzzling to me.

J_Marc:… Tamen mi supozas ke pro neintencita konsekvenco de la agoj de homaro, la mondo ja varmiĝas pli rapide."

I had intended the use of "we" versus "homaro (human race)" to bring the responsibility closer to home. Is there a preference in Esperanto to prefer less direct statement, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy?

JK, on the issue of translating 'it may be that ...', there are a number of ways of doing that, but I can't think of one using povu.

You could say Povas esti ke, Povus esti ke, Eble estas vere ke.

With your addition of indeed (it may indeed be ..) I feel this underlines your readiness to concede a point/possibility. This suggests a more flowery phrasing - mi koncedas ke ja povas esti ke.

In the end, translation is an art, not an exact science.

An example of a sentence with 'povu' would be mi donis la monon por ke li povu fini la kurson.

jkph00:I had intended the use of "we" versus "homaro (human race)" to bring the responsibility closer to home. Is there a preference in Esperanto to prefer less direct statement, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy?

I'm afraid don't know the answer to that, however I used 'homaro' not for diplomacy so much but because it seems clearer to me and I think that is what you meant. I think I'd probably do the same thing in English. I suppose it depends on context - does 'ni' mean we, the human race, or the we in the developed world, or we in the USA?