До змісту
Відповісти

What's the difference?

від sudanglo, 19 лютого 2014 р.

Повідомлення: 9

Мова: English

sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 19 лютого 2014 р. 13:38:09

Do you see a difference between

1. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povus Y-i
2. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povu Y-i

Roberto12 (Переглянути профіль) 19 лютого 2014 р. 19:34:50

This reminds me of the se issue, i.e. se ĝi estas/estis/estos/estus/estu), and on that occasion, I racked my brains for a long time and never decided anything final. Maybe the exact verb form should be decided on a case by case basis, possibly following pre-established patterns.

To answer the specific question, I do see a difference, but I'm not quite sure what it is! But whatever, it's good morphological design that the two endings are similar.

EldanarLambetur (Переглянути профіль) 20 лютого 2014 р. 01:15:05

So, do they both suggest that you're not enough X, that you can do Y?

The two forms seem to suggest slightly different potential barriers to doing Y.

Form 1 seems to talk about capability (I'm not so clever that I could pass my physics exam).

Whereas form 2 seems to have a component of what you may be allowed to do (I'm not so popular that I could get into that party).

Or is that a naive interpretation of the u-modo? Either way, it seems like there could be some major overlap (I'm not so clever that could get (be allowed) into mensa), since "capability" encompasses what you're allowed to do.

sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 20 лютого 2014 р. 11:42:41

Interesting analysis, Eldanar. Yes I think there is a nuanced difference. Perhaps along the lines of 'would be able' versus 'might'.

Robert, you list -u as possible after 'se'. I don't think that I have ever come across that. Do you have an example?

-as, is, -os, -us after 'se' don't seem particularly problematical. What was the source of difficulty for you?

Incidentally, certainly -i after se, eg se ne paroli pri

Roberto12 (Переглянути профіль) 21 лютого 2014 р. 15:34:11

I'm thinking: is the 2nd version even valid? What does a subordinate U-form really mean there? And is it the case that in both phrases, there's an "invisible" kiel before the ke?

Regarding se, I don't have any U examples to hand, although I'm not sure why it would be wrong (cf. the above paragraph). My general problem stems from variation in usage; consider these English examples.

1. If England won the World Cup, everyone would celebrate.
2. If England win the World Cup, everyone will celebrate.
3. If England would win the World Cup, everyone would celebrate.
4. If England will win the World Cup, everyone will celebrate.
5. (Dodgy) If England be winning the World Cup, everyone will celebrate.

I can see them all working in Esperanto...

sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 22 лютого 2014 р. 10:41:28

is it the case that in both phrases, there's an "invisible" kiel before the ke?
No. Tiel kiel is for comparisons.

Mi ne neniam vidis vin tiel bela, kiel nun
sed tiel longe, kiel amo ekzistos en la mondo

Will and would after if are valid in English, but here we enter the territory of semantics rather than tense selection.

If you will follow me - se vi bonvolos sekvi min.
If you will eat between meals - se vi insistas manĝi ekster la manĝo-horoj.
If you would just listen to what I'm saying - se vi nur ĝentilus atenti al tio, kion mi diras.

Some Americans and many foreigners might say if England would win or if England will win instead of if England were to win or if England wins, but it isn't the Queen's English.
5. (Dodgy) If England be winning the World Cup, everyone will celebrate.
You said it Robert - dodgy. Perhaps in some west country dialects?

sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 22 лютого 2014 р. 10:50:27

Do you see a difference between

1. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povus Y-i
2. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povu Y-i
I raised this topic because somewhere buried in the small print in PAG, Waringhien suggests that -us is preferable, whilst noting that Zamenhof sometimes used -u.

But if there is a difference in meaning, then it is not a question of -us being better than -u.

EldanarLambetur (Переглянути профіль) 22 лютого 2014 р. 12:18:08

Could the preference also change depending on what the construction follows?

1. If you were to be late with your rent, I'm not so rich that I would be able to pay for you. (povus)

2. They want only good leaders, and I'm not so charismatic that I may (could) apply. (povu)

Perhaps there are better examples, but maybe you get my drift?

Roberto12 (Переглянути профіль) 22 лютого 2014 р. 13:49:27

Those are good examples, Eldanar, and they make the point. But in the second, perhaps it would be pithier to replace povu kandidatiĝi with kandidatiĝu

Regarding tiel/kiel, when I transliterate the comparative template into English, and when I do the same with the "non comparative" template (as in the O.P.), they both seem to work. But maybe my native English is leading me astray.

(The last if example was made up.)

Назад до початку