Berichten: 9
Taal: English
haphadon (Profiel tonen) 8 juli 2014 21:02:04
I initially thought it would be:
Mi haves du persikojn manĝi ĉi tiun nokton
However, I wasn't completely confident with that so I went and looked it up on a few websites that translate esperanto to english. They said it should be:
Mi havas du persikojn por manĝi ĉi tiun nokton
I wondering why they added "por" before manĝi. I thought that "por" means for, and the infinitive form of a verb means "to verb", so I'm just curious as to why "por" is added.
Thanks for reading this, I'm loving esperanto so far and look forward to learning it this summer!
cyrille (Profiel tonen) 8 juli 2014 21:46:37
If you would say
Mi havas du persikojn manĝi ĉi tiun nokton
what would it mean ?
First part of the sentence, "I have to peaches" makes sence. So does the last part "during the night". But all together with the verb, I do not see what it would mean.
You have the peaches for what to do ? To eat theam. By adding "por" you make the link with the verb.
Fenris_kcf (Profiel tonen) 8 juli 2014 23:00:57
eric_vandenburg (Profiel tonen) 9 juli 2014 00:16:11
"I have two peaches to eat tonight."
Mi havas du persikojn por mangi ĉi tiun nokton.
Mi havas du persikojn mangi ĉi tiun nokton.
I don't believe either is outright wrong, and the meaning is clear in both cases, but the first might be in rather more common usage.
These exact types of constructions are covered in some detail by a very popular (but that is not to mean official) online grammar handbook: PMEG. There is a whole section on this issue, with a lot of considerations concerning when to use por in front of an infinitive verb -- but keep in mind most of the section is just general stylistic suggestions based on precedent and the way the majority of people speak Esperanto. It would be a mistake to think of these 'rules' as having the same weight as 'nouns end with o' etc.. But that said, a relevant rule for your sentence can be found on the page:
http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/i-verboj/kun_ro...
...That is to say, if your infinitive verb (mangi, to eat) is being used as a direct description of some intended action upon a [concrete] nown, (persiko, peach), then normally one uses 'por' in front of the verb. The first example given is:
Se I-verbo estas rekta priskribo de O-vorto aŭ O-vorteca vorteto, kaj se laŭsence ĝi esprimas celatan agon, oni normale devas uzi por antaŭ la I-verbo.
...
Ĉu vi havas korktirilon, por malŝtopi la botelon?See the similarity? And note that you wouldn't translate this sentence word for word as:
Do you have a corkscrew for to uncork the bottle?
But something more like:
Do you have a corkscrew to uncork the bottle?
or
Do you have a corkscrew for uncorking the bottle?
It's just an example of the differences between Esperanto and English grammar.
More importantly, this is exactly what is happening in your sentence. A peach is a concrete noun like a corkscrew, and 'to eat (tonight)' is just a clause describing an action on the peach like 'to uncork ( the bottle )' describes the corkscrew. Thus, according to PMEG, and my interpretation of it, ( and how much stock you put in either ), the use of por mangi is recommended, in the case of your sentence.
sudanglo (Profiel tonen) 9 juli 2014 11:25:55
You wouldn't say persikas manĝi. This doesn't make sense
However, you can say eblas manĝi or rajtas manĝi (no linking 'por' ), and therefore also havi la eblon/rajton manĝi.
sergejm (Profiel tonen) 10 juli 2014 12:57:50
2. Mi havas simion manĝi bananon I have a monkey which eats a bananas
3. Mi havas persikon manĝi ... Meaningless!
4. Mi havas persikon manĝebla ĉi-nokte I have a peach I/they can eat tonight
5. Mi havas persikon manĝinda ĉi-nokte I have a peach worth eating tonight
6. Mi havas persikon manĝota ĉi-nokte I have a peach I/they will eat tonight
7. Mi havas persikon por manĝi ĉi-nokte I have a peach for/to eat tonight
DuckFiasco (Profiel tonen) 10 juli 2014 17:56:41
1. to extend the action of the main subject of the sentence: Mi havis la deziron foriri. (Mi foriris, ne la deziro!) Li estas preta lerni. (Li lernos)
For that reason, I feel the second sentence above is incorrect because "manĝi" must refer back to "mi": mi havas simion manĝi, I have a monkey for me to eat. More usual for saying what the monkey does would be "...simion, kiu manĝas bananon."
2. to clarify the role of the o-word, which we could replace with a "ke" clause: Ni donis al li la eblon labori laŭplaĉe. (...ke li laboru)
3. to indicate purpose of the object, though we very often add a "por" before the infinitive as already discussed: havi tempon (por) ripozi, havi spacon por sidiĝi, etc.
You can read further here and further on por + i-verbs here
So for sergejm's sentences:
1. same
2. Mi havas simion, kiu manĝas bananon.
3. Mi havas persikon (por) manĝi. (perfectly fine sentence)
4 - 6 the adjectives must take -n: Mi havas persikon manĝeblan...
7. interchangeable with 3 for me, though "por" seems better.
sergejm (Profiel tonen) 11 juli 2014 05:01:00
DuckFiasco:I don't see it the same way as sergejm.Partly you are right.
I looked at tekstaro.com for similar examples.
After verb "havi" (have) and most other it acts as you described.
But it isn't so with verb "vidi" (see) and some other - even you didn't correct my first sentence.
Ater these verbs i-verb or a-participle or an adjective without -n discribe the action of direct object (your 3-rd rule):
"vidi" (see)
"lasi" (leave)
"peti" (ask)
"igi" (cause)
"komisii" (entrust)
"inviti" (invite)
etc.
After these verbs they describe the action of indirect object "al ..." (to ...) (your 2-nd rule)
"doni" (give)
"permesi" (allow)
etc.
In fact, the exceptions are your 3-rd and 2-nd rules.
DuckFiasco (Profiel tonen) 12 juli 2014 23:56:55
The second sentence is mainly what I wanted to draw attention to, since the usage "-o -i" is often mishandled in Esperanto.Thank you for putting that list together, it's very helpful
These little quirks in Esperanto are subtle.