K vsebini
Odgovori

Dum aŭ ekde?

od rev_peterson, 11. avgust 2014

Sporočila: 9

Jezik: English

rev_peterson (Prikaži profil) 11. avgust 2014 21:56:54

Hi guys,

I'm currently using InterPals as a way to communicate in Esperanto. It's great; I found a great pal from Hungary who's interested in learning English. She is great and we're having fun, but as we set out to correct each other, I fear the lack of a common language may be causing some misunderstandings - from my end, I'm afraid; I don't know if I'm really understanding what she said in this particular case that follows:

In the middle of a text, I said

"mi estis instruisto dum (?) kvar jaroj"

I wasn't sure about dum, but then again I didn't know what else to use. Then she said:

"no 'dum' ekde 4 jaroj"

As I researched the idea of ekde I grew confused. And I said:

"Ankaŭ... Ĉu vi estas certa pri ekde? Nur, mi ne estas instruisto. Rigardu:

Mi estis instruisto dum kvar jaroj (during / for 4 years)
Mi estis instruisto ekde 2010 (since 2010)
Mi estis instruisto ekde kvar jaroj (since 4 years? Isn't "ekde antaŭ kvar jaroj" better, then? Since 4 years ago?)

Mi estas konfuzita =s haha"

To which she replied...

""dum leciono" are sitting
for 4 years = ekde 4 jaroj"

Now I'm reeeeeally confused.

Am I thinking in English instead of through Esperanto's logic and missing the point somewhere along the way? I'd appreciate any help - thanks in advance!!

erinja (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 01:59:59

Mi estis instruisto dum 4 jaroj - I was a teacher for four years, I am no longer a teacher.

Mi estas instruisto [jam] dum 4 jaroj - I have been a teacher for four yeras, I am still a teacher.

Mi estas instruisto ekde antaŭ 4 jaroj - i have been a teacher since four years ago (I am still a teacher)

"ekde 4 jaroj" is wrong. "ekde" is used with a fixed point in time, not a relative one; you can say "ekde januaro" or "ekde merkredo" or "ekde 2010" but not "ekde 2 tagoj".

Sounds like your friend is using "ekde" wrong.

Alkanadi (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 08:17:12

erinja:Mi estis instruisto dum 4 jaroj - I was a teacher for four years, I am no longer a teacher
What if you say:

Mi estas instruisto dum 4 jaroj.
Does this mean that I am a teacher with 4 years of experience?

tommjames (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 08:36:08

rev_peterson:Mi estis instruisto ekde kvar jaroj (since 4 years? Isn't "ekde antaŭ kvar jaroj" better, then? Since 4 years ago?)
Yes, if you wanted to use 'ekde' then it would be better to use 'antaŭ' to reference a point in time explicitly, rather than using a period expression and expecting your listener to interpret it as "la komenca tempopunkto" of that period.

Note however that use of 'ekde' with a time period is not exactly foreign to Esperanto and you will find this usage crop up from time to time. Apparently there are some European languages that use the same word for both points in time and time periods, so that might be how it got into the language. Whether it's "wrong" depends on how prescriptive you want to be. Many consider it merely evitinda, myself included.

sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 09:46:34

Using ekde with periods can be vague. Ekde la unua mondmilito. Is this from 1914 or 1918 or what? Extra context could gives us an idea.

Of course, sometimes a certain vagueness is OK. If someone says I have known that since I was a child (ekde infanaĝo), it's not particularly important when exactly the speaker came to know that.

My impression is that in expressing the idea I have been an X for N years, ekde is not the preferred way of saying that. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear estas de or jam de.

Here are several examples from the Tekstaro:

Sciante, ke jam de multaj jaroj vi estas juĝisto
tiu literatura ludo ekzistas jam de multaj jarcentoj
li nun havas okazon rebonigi kion de multaj jaroj li ŝuldas al ili

For a period in the past (not upto now) dum is the clear preference (mi estis dum), but it can be also be used for 'I have been for.. ' (mi estas dum).

EDIT: The choice between de and dum in 'have for' seems to me to be largely stylistic. I can't think of a rule.

patrik (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 15:17:57

sudanglo:Using ekde with periods can be vague. Ekde la unua mondmilito. Is this from 1914 or 1918 or what? Extra context could gives us an idea.
As I understand it, "ekde" means "starting from", and I use "depost", which means "from after".

"Ekde la unua mondmilito" = from the onset of the First World War
"Depost la unua mondmilito" = right after the First World War

rev_peterson (Prikaži profil) 12. avgust 2014 16:00:34

Wow, thank you so much, guys. This was really informative! Dankon!

sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 13. avgust 2014 08:46:35

As I understand it, "ekde" means "starting from", and I use "depost", which means "from after".
Yes, Patrik

But in :

"Ekde la unua mondmilito" = from the onset of the First World War
"Depost la unua mondmilito" = right after the First World War

you have added an extra degree of precision by translating with 'from the onset' (ekde la komenco) and 'right after' (tuj post)

patrik (Prikaži profil) 13. avgust 2014 15:29:02

sudanglo:
As I understand it, "ekde" means "starting from", and I use "depost", which means "from after".
Yes, Patrik

But in :

"Ekde la unua mondmilito" = from the onset of the First World War
"Depost la unua mondmilito" = right after the First World War

you have added an extra degree of precision by translating with 'from the onset' (ekde la komenco) and 'right after' (tuj post)
It's just for emphasis to deliver my point across, my apologies.

Nazaj na začetek