Conditional Help
de Foreigner, 9 juillet 2014
Messages : 58
Langue: English
sudanglo (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 14:41:36
Can you find indicative and conditional, joined by "kaj", in Tekstaro or other Esperanto book?Wouldn't it be natural to say, for example, mi tre lacis kaj volonte estus haltinta por iom ripozi, sed konsciis ke ...., or mi tre koleris kaj facile estus lin frapinta
From the Tekstaro:
Li havis multe da tempo kaj estus povinta atingi sian hejmon ...
tro malfrue li ĝin eldonis, ĉar mi jam konstruigis al mi du domojn, kaj liaj konsiloj estus estintaj ege taŭgaj.
mi uzis la forkon de Stanislav, la tason de Fernando, la tranĉilon de Ruben, kaj kuleron mi estus ricevinta de Hermann, sed kuleron mi mem posedis.
Mi mem ne ricevis aparte abundan tagmanĝon, kaj post miaj spertoj de la pasinta monato, mi ne estus rifuzinta restaĵojn.
nornen (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 15:41:52
sudanglo:My point exactely:tro malfrue li ĝin eldonis, ĉar mi jam konstruigis al mi du domojn, kaj liaj konsiloj estus estintaj ege taŭgaj.
mi uzis la forkon de Stanislav, la tason de Fernando, la tranĉilon de Ruben, kaj kuleron mi estus ricevinta de Hermann, sed kuleron mi mem posedis.
Mi mem ne ricevis aparte abundan tagmanĝon, kaj post miaj spertoj de la pasinta monato, mi ne estus rifuzinta restaĵojn.
(1) His advice would have been very useful, BEFORE I built my two houses. Unfortunately, I hadn't receive these advices when I needed them.
(2) Hermann would have given me his knife, BEFORE I started using everybody's cutlery, but he didn't as I myself had one.
Looks strange to me:
(3) I didn't receive a big meal, and BEFORE not receiving it, but AFTER my experiences of the last month, I wouldn't have refused leftovers.
What is the "rifuzinta" supposed to express here?
sudanglo:mi tre lacis kaj volonte estus haltinta por iom ripoziMakes sense: I was very tired (at 3 PM marching through the wilderness), I would have stopped for a rest (at 2 PM, when I was passing a pub), if back then I had had the foresight.
Makes sense, too: Mi tre lacis kaj volonte haltus por iom ripozi.
I was very tired (at 3 PM) and I would have stopped for a rest (at 3 PM), but unfortunately I was being chased down by a pack of wolves.
nornen (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 16:26:02
(1) When I removed the hook, the fish would have stung me, but I was wearing a glove.
(2) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo pikus min, sed mi surhavis ganton.
(3) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min, sed mi surhavis ganton.
Dear sudanglo,
according to your understanding,
(a) what do these two Esperanto sentences mean?
(b) When would the potential sting have occurred: while removing the hook or before removing the hook?
(c) What is the difference between (2) and (3)?
(d) How would you translate (2) and (3) into English?
(e) How would you translate (1) into Esperanto?
sergejm (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 16:44:09
sudanglo:mi tre lacis kaj volonte estus haltinta por iom ripozi, sed konsciis ke ....Don't forget "sed konsciis ke ...". I would have stopped before this "but".
sudanglo:mi tre koleris kaj facile estus lin frapintaI think, similar "but" is assumed.
sudanglo:The time of "ne estus rifuzinta" is related to "ne ricevis".
Mi mem ne ricevis aparte abundan tagmanĝon, kaj post miaj spertoj de la pasinta monato, mi ne estus rifuzinta restaĵojn.
tommjames (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 16:44:56
PMEG says:
"Simpla US-formo estas tute sentempa, sed multaj tamen sentas US-verbojn kiel nuntempajn, kaj uzas INTUS ĉiam, kiam temas pri pasinteco:"
Translated:
A simple US-form is completely time-neutral, but nevertheless many will perceive a US-verb as grounded in the present, and use INTUS when the condition relates to the past.
nornen (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 17:05:17
tommjames:"Simpla US-formo estas tute sentempa, sed multaj tamen sentas US-verbojn kiel nuntempajn, kaj uzas INTUS ĉiam, kiam temas pri pasinteco:"This is an important statement, and shows that the PMEG is a good descriptive grammar.
Translated:
A simple US-form is completely time-neutral, but nevertheless many will perceive a US-verb as grounded in the present, and use INTUS when the condition relates to the past.
Also the PAG covers this topic, detailing that there are persons who take the "-us x'inta" (I think the PAG calls this a conditional perfect) as a past conditional.
The PMEG also states:
PMEG:Li estus leginta libron, se... Lia legado de libro estus pasinta afero, se...So, consequently:
"Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min."
could be rendered as
"Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la pikado de la fiŝo estus pasinta afero."
Now this together with the hypothesis that ""estus" usually references the present", would mean:
"When I removed the hook, the fish's sting would be (defaults to present) a past event."
However, this looks meaningful to me:
"Kiam mi finfine sukcesis forigi la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min cent fojojn, sed mi surhavis ganton."
----
Nota bene: Wearing a glove doesn't protect at all against fish stings. I once couldn't move three fingers for two days after a catfish stung me. And I was indeed wearing a leather working glove while gutting it. The fish just stung right through it.
sergejm (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 17:09:59
nornen:(2) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo pikus min, sed mi surhavis ganton.In Russian, I would say "рыба уколола бы меня" with perfect verb. With imperfect verb "рыба колола бы меня" I would translated to Esperanto "la fiŝo pikadus min".
(3) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min, sed mi surhavis ganton.
Removing a hook take some time, stig would happen during this time and have finished before the time ends.
nornen (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 17:12:20
sergejm:Thank you so very much. You foresaw my intention to ask you about your opinion from a Russian point of view.nornen:(2) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo pikus min, sed mi surhavis ganton.In Russian, I would say "рыба уколола бы меня" with perfect verb. With imperfect verb "рыба колола бы меня" I would translated to Esperanto "la fiŝo pikadus min".
(3) Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min, sed mi surhavis ganton.
Removing a hook take some time, stig would happen during this time and have finished before the time ends.
This is very interesting, as Russians conditionals don't distinguish tense, but aspect.
Sergejm,
could you please translate this into Russian:
"Kiam mi finfine sukcesis forigi la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min (jam) cent fojojn, sed mi surhavis ganton."
tommjames (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 17:26:05
nornen:So, consequently:I'm not so sure this follows. The question is whether the "pasinta afero" is in the past relative to other context (which in the 2nd phrase above is the time when I removed the hook), or relative to now, making it just "in the past".
"Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min."
could be rendered as
"Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la pikado de la fiŝo estus pasinta afero."
The phrase you cite from PMEG doesn't have any further context so it doesn't really inform us on this matter. In any case, from my own experience in the language I'm fairly certain that the "estus" in your 2nd phrase above need not be bound to the time pinpointed by "forigis". I agree it's an example of where the usual custom of assuming the estus to reference the present is a bit suspect, but notwithstanding that, it seems to me to be simply how the language works.
In any case you can avoid the whole question by saying "la fiŝo pikus min", and IMO that is the preferable form.
sergejm (Voir le profil) 15 juillet 2014 17:30:58
With jam: … рыба уже сто раз уколола бы меня,…
All verbs are perfect, I can't explain why I use them. I am not linguist and didn't study when to use perfect or imperfect verbs.