Conditional Help
de Foreigner, 2014-julio-09
Mesaĝoj: 58
Lingvo: English
nornen (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-15 17:52:20
tommjames:In any case you can avoid the whole question by saying "la fiŝo pikus min", and IMO that is the preferable form.And I personally would go further, converting your "weak intus principle" to the "strong intus principle":
In the above mentioned example, using "la fiŝo pikus min" is not only preferable, but obligatory. At least when you want to avoid possible confusion in the listener (who might not be familiar with English conditionals, or conditionals of another language whose conditional forms indeed mark tense, like e.g. Spanish or German).
The negative effect of this from an English point of view is that the 1-to-1 mapping of "would do -> farus" and "would have done -> estus farinta" is lost.
A positive effect is that Esperanto's conditional and indicative work the same way:
Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo pikis min, ĉar mi ne surhavis ganton.
Kiam mi forigis la hokon, la fiŝo pikus min, sed mi surhavis ganton.
Kiam mi finfine sukcesis forigi la hokon, la fiŝo estis pikinta min cent fojojn, ĉar mi ne surhavis ganton.
Kiam mi finfine sukcesis forigi la hokon, la fiŝo estus pikinta min cent fojojn, sed mi surhavis ganton.
Kiam mi alvenis domen, mia edzino eliris. (She said bye and left)
Kiam mi alvenis domen, mia edzino elirus, sed ŝi preferis resti dome.
Kiam mi alvenis domen, mia edzino estis elirinta. (I just found a note on the fridge)
Kiam mi alvenis domen, mia edzino estus elirinta, sed ŝi estis ekdorminta. (She would have left for work an hour before I came home.)
Kiam mi alvenos domen, mia edzino kisos min.
Kiam mi alvenos domen, mia edzino kisus min. (But won't be able to do so for whatever reason... Women!)
Kiam mi alvenos domen, mia edzino estos atendinta min.
Kiam mi alvenos domen, mia edzino estus atendinta min. (But she still is (and will be) mad at me.)
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-16 11:27:41
Esperanto knows three absolute tenses: present, past and future. These are expressed in the indicative by -as, -is and -os respectively.Not quite the whole story.
These simple forms can be used relatively as well, the usage in indirect speech being a well known example.
Li diris ke li ne volas (didn't want to ..)
Li komprenis ke li venos (would come)
Mi vidis ke li finis (had finished)
When there are two actions the temporal relation may be left to common sense or the most plausible interpretation.
Mi lacis kaj volis halti (simultaneous)
Mi pakis mian valizon, kaj iris al la stacidomo (sequential)
But where there may be doubt about the temporal relation, it is better to make it explicit. Kiam mi alvenis hejmen, mia edzino jam eliris, or, estis elirinta. Plain 'eliris' might be interpreted as after your arrival.
Which brings us to estus -inta.
In some particular case, the estus -inta might be anchored to the present or to a time in the past.
So Mi lacis kaj estus haltinta por ripozi might be analysed as I was tired (then) and would have stopped (then) - the haltinta being previous to now.
So this is analogous to (in the indicative) mi lacis kaj volis halti where both actions/states are in the past relative to now and a common sense interpretation leads to simultaneity.
However, if you insist on the meaning I was tired (then)and would have (previously) stopped, then you are requiring the reader to interpret the haltinta as relative to the time of 'lacis'.
sergejm (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-16 14:03:08
In "mi lacis kaj volis halti" is also sequential "and". You can't change the first verb and the last.
Both English and Esperanto are not so precise as the programming languages.
Let's suppose, as we play Sims:
Mi estas laca = I'm tired = Mia laceco > 50% = My tiredness > 50%
If tiredness > 50% and < 90%, then I want to stop and look for a place for to have a rest.
If tiredness > 90% or I find the place, then I do stop.
"Mi estus haltinta" means that the tiredness was between 50% and 90% before I came.
"antaŭ mi venis" is assumed.
Another thing is about
"Mi pakis la valizon je 9:30 kaj irus al la stacidomo, sed la trajno jam forveturis je 9:00"
There is no real time for "irus al la stacidomo"!
Both English and Esperanto are not so precise as the programming languages.
Let's suppose, as we play Sims:
Mi estas laca = I'm tired = Mia laceco > 50% = My tiredness > 50%
If tiredness > 50% and < 90%, then I want to stop and look for a place for to have a rest.
If tiredness > 90% or I find the place, then I do stop.
"Mi estus haltinta" means that the tiredness was between 50% and 90% before I came.
"antaŭ mi venis" is assumed.
Another thing is about
"Mi pakis la valizon je 9:30 kaj irus al la stacidomo, sed la trajno jam forveturis je 9:00"
There is no real time for "irus al la stacidomo"!
Altebrilas (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-17 09:43:58
IMHO, there is not always a direct translation of conditionnals from national languages to esperanto. If it's not the case, I think it's better to turn the sentence otherwise. This example:
(1) My father was a soldier and would have fought for his fatherland.can be translated in french by:
(2) Mia patro estis soldato kaj estus batalinta por sia patrujo.
Mon père était soldat, et se serait battu pour sa patrieBut, even in french, this sentence is ambiguous. It's better to use more words and less grammatical complications:
Mia patro estis soldato, kaj [kaze de milito] pretis batali por sia patrujoIf a grammatical rule is not clear for everybody, I believe the best is to avoid it whenever possible.
Mia patro estis soldato, kaj [se rumoro pravas] okazus [eĉ] ke li batalis por sia patrujo
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-17 10:05:57
Let me come at this from a different angle.
You may say that estus has absolutely no time implication, and in that case when you encounter estus -inta it follows that you are totally in the dark as to the previousness of the action. It might be before some time in the future, before now, or before some time in the past, and therefore you can't single out that the haltinta relates to stopping before the time of the narrative.
However a plausible interpretation of mi lacis kaj estus haltinta is that the state and action are contemporary, with the haltinta referring to before now - the effect of contemporaneity being achieved in the same way as in the indicative mi lacis kaj volis halti.
On the other hand you may accept that through customary usage estus has a default value of the present (or the future, or in general) - though this may be overridden by more context.
In that case the meaning of 'I was tired and would have stopped' is also achieved.
The problem with mi lacis kaj haltus is the confusion it creates. Under the supposition that -us is temporally neutral, the meaning is not explicit; under the idea that through usage -us is associated with the present, there is temporal disorientation.
By adding -inta we bring in the idea of previousness, and know at least that there is an element of pastness.
Of course, you can also express the idea of 'I was very tired and would have stopped earlier' (eg at the pub I had passed), but then you would add words to make that clear. Mi estis tre laca kaj estus pli frue haltinta (ĉe la trinkejo kiun mi pasis) sed ...
You may say that estus has absolutely no time implication, and in that case when you encounter estus -inta it follows that you are totally in the dark as to the previousness of the action. It might be before some time in the future, before now, or before some time in the past, and therefore you can't single out that the haltinta relates to stopping before the time of the narrative.
However a plausible interpretation of mi lacis kaj estus haltinta is that the state and action are contemporary, with the haltinta referring to before now - the effect of contemporaneity being achieved in the same way as in the indicative mi lacis kaj volis halti.
On the other hand you may accept that through customary usage estus has a default value of the present (or the future, or in general) - though this may be overridden by more context.
In that case the meaning of 'I was tired and would have stopped' is also achieved.
The problem with mi lacis kaj haltus is the confusion it creates. Under the supposition that -us is temporally neutral, the meaning is not explicit; under the idea that through usage -us is associated with the present, there is temporal disorientation.
By adding -inta we bring in the idea of previousness, and know at least that there is an element of pastness.
Of course, you can also express the idea of 'I was very tired and would have stopped earlier' (eg at the pub I had passed), but then you would add words to make that clear. Mi estis tre laca kaj estus pli frue haltinta (ĉe la trinkejo kiun mi pasis) sed ...
sergejm (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-17 15:14:49
(1) My father was a soldier and would have fought for his fatherland."Would have fought" isn't conditional here, it is Future In Past. Translate it by future participle:
(2) Mia patro estis soldato kaj estus batalinta por sia patrujo.
Mia patro estis soldato kaj estis batalonta por sia patrujo.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-18 08:53:25
Estis batalonta means was about to fight/going to fight/was to fight.
It may be that with estis -onta that the action does not take place. For example in Mi estis elironta kiam la telefono sonoris maybe I didn't go out as the result of the phone call. But the denial of action is not of the same order as with estus -inta.
Section 257 of PAG confirms my view of plain -us as being sometimes confusing and has examples.
.. slavaj verkistoj ofte uzas kondicionalon simplan astataŭ perfektan. Tio neniel estas aprobebla, ĉar ĝi ofte estigas konfuzon pri la tempo.
Ekzemple: se la Espe-istaro konjektus, ke la Delegacio havas la rajton reformi, certe ili ne laborus por la Delegacio. Tie ĉi oni komprenas, ke la Esp-istoj ne supektas kaj laboras, kvankam efektive ili ne suspektis kaj laboris.
Do devas teksti: se ... estus suspektintaj .. ne estus laborintaj ..
-----------------------
... se vi estus lin helpinta, li ne bankrotus - ĉi tie ne estas klare, ĉu li jam bankrotis, aŭ nur bankrotus. Male: se vi helpus lin, li ne estus bankrotinta estas nemiskomprenebla, ĉar la kondiĉo ĉiam antaŭas la konsekvencon.
It may be that with estis -onta that the action does not take place. For example in Mi estis elironta kiam la telefono sonoris maybe I didn't go out as the result of the phone call. But the denial of action is not of the same order as with estus -inta.
Section 257 of PAG confirms my view of plain -us as being sometimes confusing and has examples.
.. slavaj verkistoj ofte uzas kondicionalon simplan astataŭ perfektan. Tio neniel estas aprobebla, ĉar ĝi ofte estigas konfuzon pri la tempo.
Ekzemple: se la Espe-istaro konjektus, ke la Delegacio havas la rajton reformi, certe ili ne laborus por la Delegacio. Tie ĉi oni komprenas, ke la Esp-istoj ne supektas kaj laboras, kvankam efektive ili ne suspektis kaj laboris.
Do devas teksti: se ... estus suspektintaj .. ne estus laborintaj ..
-----------------------
... se vi estus lin helpinta, li ne bankrotus - ĉi tie ne estas klare, ĉu li jam bankrotis, aŭ nur bankrotus. Male: se vi helpus lin, li ne estus bankrotinta estas nemiskomprenebla, ĉar la kondiĉo ĉiam antaŭas la konsekvencon.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-18 09:10:20
One way to make the time clear might have been to say estis -unta, or -untis.
But largely Esperanto has shunned the use of -unt.
But largely Esperanto has shunned the use of -unt.
nornen (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-19 03:16:19
sudanglo:One way to make the time clear might have been to say estis -unta, or -untis.I guess it is shunned, because it is utterly senseless. A participle (at least in EO) expresses a relative tense to some reference frame. The conditional is tenseless. So the meaning of a conditional participle is naught.
But largely Esperanto has shunned the use of -unt.
Next thing would be "Mi estis volunta esti manĝonta, se mi estis havunta la tempon tiam."
Really, just because one's mother tongue has a past conditional, doesn't mean that all other languages need one, too.
It is the same with "oh my, 'dividi' means both 'divide' and 'share'! I really need a separate word for each concept, otherwise I won't be able to communicate."
Spanish has a subjunctive future. English doesn't. Esperanto doesn't. Nobody makes a fuss about that.
Greek has an aorist. English doesn't. Spanish doesn't. Esperanto doesn't. Nobody makes a fuss about that.
If English hadn't lost its dative, I guess we would be discussing now the -m suffix for Esperanto datives. Mi donis panon miam amikom.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2014-julio-19 10:55:44
We do not have good corpus based evidence for the meaning of estis -unta, unlike for estus -inta.
However, the argument that it should be utterly senseless doesn't seem to me to hold water.
By analogy with the indicative participles where the tense of esti gives a frame of reference, you would expect the esti to similarly provide the frame of reference for esti -unta.
Thus estis haltunta would imply ne haltis, and estas farunta would imply ne faras.
By the way the argument that some languages have a way of expressing a certain idea in the verb which others don't, seems weak.
Many European languages - including the international language at the time of the appearance of Esperanto (French) and the international language of today (English) - have the means of expressing in the verb that something didn't but under some condition would have occurred, so it is to be expected that Esperanto which evolved in a European environment should also have a means of expressing this in the verb.
Edit: By the way, even if in the noun form -unto there is no indication of time, it seems to me that there is no difficulty in understanding in context words like the heredunto (kiun oni murdis) or the edziĝunto (kiu ne aperas ĉe la ceremonio).
However, the argument that it should be utterly senseless doesn't seem to me to hold water.
By analogy with the indicative participles where the tense of esti gives a frame of reference, you would expect the esti to similarly provide the frame of reference for esti -unta.
Thus estis haltunta would imply ne haltis, and estas farunta would imply ne faras.
By the way the argument that some languages have a way of expressing a certain idea in the verb which others don't, seems weak.
Many European languages - including the international language at the time of the appearance of Esperanto (French) and the international language of today (English) - have the means of expressing in the verb that something didn't but under some condition would have occurred, so it is to be expected that Esperanto which evolved in a European environment should also have a means of expressing this in the verb.
Edit: By the way, even if in the noun form -unto there is no indication of time, it seems to me that there is no difficulty in understanding in context words like the heredunto (kiun oni murdis) or the edziĝunto (kiu ne aperas ĉe la ceremonio).