Přejít k obsahu
Odpovědět

A question about participles

od uživatele richardhall ze dne 13. března 2014

Příspěvky: 17

Jazyk: English

sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 18. března 2014 21:20:03

but quite naturally I'd settle for "venonta", with no particular bus in mind and referring to some bus which iam venos al la haltejo.
Look at these examples from the Tekstaro.

Ĉar la venonta vagonaro pasos nur post unu horo
Oni decidis, ke en la venonta nokto
ĉi tiuj vortoj estu parolataj al ili la venontan sabaton
Dum la venontaj du horoj ni denove parolos pri tiu romano
Ekde la venonta aŭtuno, kiam komenciĝos nova lernojaro

Of course, if your point is that any future bus could be referred to as venonta, then yes, but not especially helpful to the original poster. La venonta buso, however patently means the next one. And if that weren't the case then Esperanto would indeed need a neologismo for 'next'.

Ulsterano (Ukázat profil) 19. března 2014 11:58:29

What I don't understand is how 46/50 or 42/50 can be fails! What's the pass mark? 50/50?

erinja (Ukázat profil) 19. března 2014 12:21:55

It isn't based on percentage. You can only make one error in each section so if you made only two errors, and in the same section, you fail.

Is a way of ensuring you master all concepts. Each section has five questions, so 45 out of 50 sounds good, but not if all 5 errors were in the same section.

Ulsterano (Ukázat profil) 19. března 2014 12:52:10

Thanks for that, Erinja. That's a very interesting way of doing things! I must look at the sample papers some time. I like that idea and can see the sense behind it. My only fear would be that it doesn't leave much room for carelessness. You get my drift: one mistake in a section reflects a lack of understanding, but another happens to be the result of an oversight. Still, the approach has much to recommend it.

erinja (Ukázat profil) 19. března 2014 14:17:24

Also, keep in mind that no one's life is depending on this exam. If you fail it, you take it again. It's not like it's going to prevent you from going to university or getting a job. It's more of a self-test of your knowledge, to help you identify areas where you need to study more.

sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 20. března 2014 9:47:28

I suppose there are two issues here.

1. Is this a bad exam question (at the level at which it appears)

2. Is venonta (rather than venanta) more logical, or is this, as Robb suggests, idiomatic.

It wouldn't surprise to me to learn that some of the questions in the Lernu exams are a little dubious (ie more than one answer could be given by an experienced Esperantist).

However, it is often the case in fill-in-the-gap tests, that there is an answer that the examiner is obviously looking for, even though there is theoretically more than one answer.

The obvious answer here is indeed venonta, particularly if this is a low-level test. The level of a test is an important consideration.

What two numbers come next 3,5,7,-,-? For a child the answers are 9,11 (odd number sequence). But a mathematics undergraduate might give 11,13 (sequence of primes)

sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 20. března 2014 10:44:03

I agreed earlier that conversion into simple forms might give guidance as to the correct participle, ie if it's kiu venas than venanta or if it's kiu venos then venonta.

But this leaves open the question of what counts as venas and what as venos.

Does, for example, the bus need to be seen to be approaching for venas to be applicable? Is venas appropriate for the current year, or should the current year, having already started be seen as jam veninta, so venas is not applicable.

However, a greater apparent difficulty with relying on conversion to simple forms as a guide, is that it doesn't seem to give the correct answer in the case of next in the past.

1. En la jaro kiu sekvis ni vizitis la patrinon pli ofte.

But 2. En la sekvanta jaro, ni vizitis ....

The difference is that in the case of the exam question there is only one time of reference (now) for both verbal ideas (veni, havi). In the case of past events referred to with -is, the reference point may be now, or a time in the past. The use of -inta would tend to force reference to the other action.

En la sekvinta jaro, ni vizitis disorientates us as to the temporal sequence.

Edit: in the Tekstaro you can find sekvonta used for next/following in the past, but most popular is sekvanta. The problem can be side-stepped with sekva.

Zpět na začátek