訊息: 9
語言: English
Roberto12 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月19日下午7:34:50
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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月20日上午1:15:05
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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月20日上午11:42:41
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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月21日下午3:34:11
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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月22日上午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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月22日上午10:50:27
Do you see a difference betweenI 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.
1. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povus Y-i
2. Mi ne estas tiel X-a, ke mi povu Y-i
But if there is a difference in meaning, then it is not a question of -us being better than -u.
EldanarLambetur (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月22日下午12:18:08
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 (顯示個人資料) 2014年2月22日下午1:49:27
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.)