Berichten: 8
Taal: English
simonh (Profiel tonen) 12 november 2014 22:30:14
Also, what's the rationale behind having passive forms of participles but not of finite verbs?
Lastly, why do finite verbs encode tense exclusively and participles aspect exclusively? Why not the other way around? Why not both for both?
kaŝperanto (Profiel tonen) 12 november 2014 23:04:13
simonh:Can someone explain to me how participles as formed with -anta/-inta/-onta and the adjective formed from a verb stem and -a relate?I would answer your first question with an "It depends". I'll explain with an example I've seen recently. The root korekt- is a verb root, while gxust- is an adjectival root (IIRC). Some beginners will use "korekta" to mean "correct", but verbal roots with adjectival endings have a different meaning; in this case "korekta" means "of or having to do with corrections; (correctual?)". The correct word is "gxusta" = "correct" (I always love explaining this
Also, what's the rationale behind having passive forms of participles but not of finite verbs?
Lastly, why do finite verbs encode tense exclusively and participles aspect exclusively? Why not the other way around? Why not both for both?
), while verb-izing "gxusta" gives us "gxusti" = "to be correct".So for participles you'd have "korektanta" = "correcting", and "gxustanta" = "being correct". The root type clearly affects the meaning of the adjective and participle versions of the word.
For rationale I have no answers for you, but my best guess is that this is the common way among many latin-based languages so that is how it was implemented. One not-really-standard use of participles is to combine both participle and finite endings to form one word with both characteristics.
"Mi farbantis la domon" = "I was painting the house"
"Mi farbintis la domon" = "I had painted the house"
"Mi estintus afable, se vi iom helpintus min" = "I would have been kind, if you would have helped me a bit"
Note: these are equivalent to "estis farbanta", "estis farbinta", and "estus estinta/helpinta".
simonh (Profiel tonen) 12 november 2014 23:29:01
By the way, how do I find out the type of a root?
sergejm (Profiel tonen) 13 november 2014 06:43:00
"Mi farbantis la domon" => "Mi ankoraŭ farbas la domon"
"Mi farbintis la domon" => "Mi jam farbis la domon"
"La skriba respondo" means that the answer is not oral ("parola" ), but written. Depending on condition, it may not be yet written.
"La skribita respondo" means that the answer was done at all. It is already written.
You can define type of root by the first translation in the dictionary nest.
For example, let us see vortaro.net:
*ĝust/a
ĝuste
ĝustaĵo
...
*korekt/i
korekto
korekta
...
ĝusta is the first, it is an adjective root.
korekti is the first, it is a verb root.
sudanglo (Profiel tonen) 13 november 2014 10:55:42
Some beginners will use "korekta" to mean "correct"Not just beginners! The overwhelming usage of korekta is in the sense of correct (conforming with the rules, conventions) and not corrective. The meaning is not an exact equivalent of ĝusta.
On the other hand korektita means corrected.
Mainly Esperanto mechanically derives the meanings of other parts of speech from the meaning of the kapvorto in the dictionary, but this is not always the case. There is a measure of pragmatism that operates in the derivations.
Manĝo, for example is predominantly used in the sense of a meal, not an act of eating.
Parki (aŭton) is only tenuously related to parko (publika ĝardeno).
kaŝperanto (Profiel tonen) 13 november 2014 14:52:35
sudanglo:You learn something every day. I have not encountered proper use of korekta before, so my derivation of its meaning is completely "by the rules", but the common usage does differ on some words. (at least I was partially gxusta)Some beginners will use "korekta" to mean "correct"Not just beginners! The overwhelming usage of korekta is in the sense of correct (conforming with the rules, conventions) and not corrective. The meaning is not an exact equivalent of ĝusta.
On the other hand korektita means corrected.
Mainly Esperanto mechanically derives the meanings of other parts of speech from the meaning of the kapvorto in the dictionary, but this is not always the case. There is a measure of pragmatism that operates in the derivations.
Manĝo, for example is predominantly used in the sense of a meal, not an act of eating.
Parki (aŭton) is only tenuously related to parko (publika ĝardeno).
kaŝperanto (Profiel tonen) 13 november 2014 15:02:16
simonh:Thanks for the detailed answer. It was this page actually which confused me: http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/vort... where skriba is translated as written, which seems to be the same as skribinta?Nedankinde. That is an easy explanation, in this case skriba is "written" in the sense of "written word" as opposed to "spoken word" (no sense of conveying that it has been written, but just that it is written). It is hard to explain since English lacks a proper adjective for this, but just think of skriba as a more general form and skribita as a more specific form.
By the way, how do I find out the type of a root?
And to address sergejm's concerns, I did not mean to say that you should begin making use of complex verbs everywhere you can (it is not fully standard use).
nornen (Profiel tonen) 13 november 2014 15:15:17
simonh:Lastly, why do finite verbs encode tense exclusively and participles aspect exclusively? Why not the other way around? Why not both for both?I am not even sure if participles mark aspect. If for instance -int- marked perferct(ive), then "mi estis verkinta" would be the same as "mi finverkis" and I am not sure if this assumption holds.
I think it is more convenient to look at it this way: Finite verbs in -as, -is and -os mark absolute tense, while the participles mark relative tense. This way with compound tenses like "estis venonta" the finite copula "anchors" the sentence to a time (absolute [1]) and the participle gives an "offset" or a "shift" into a temporal direction (relative). Hence "Mi estis venonta" refers to some point X in the past (before the moment when I uttered this sentence) and the act of coming would happen at some point Y after X. Something like "I was about to go" or "I intended to go (maybe I went, maybe I didn't, we'll never know)" or "I was preparing my arrival."
----
[1] Absolute is also a stupid word here. It would be more precise to say "relative to the moment of utterance". Deixis is a bugger.