Nordzee, you are making a slightly different point to the one I was trying to express.

Yes, in the case of highly practised skills, you may not have any longer conscious access to that that was once conscious. (Therefore if you try to teach the skill to someone else you may encounter difficulties.)

I was just trying to say that the human brain's power of abstraction from a relatively small number of examples makes the learning of ata/ita much simpler than it may appear once linguists/grammarians get in on the act and try to explain the difference between the passive suffixes (with far too much obfuscating jargon, I might add, and a tendency to make up improbable sentences).

However, there is also the question of interference from a previously highly practised skill (no longer consciously available.) If your mother tongue doesn't know the ata/ita distinction, then this may be a brake on the acquisition, through some sort of unconscious false presumption.

The acquisition of the opposition between She has seen and She saw is undoubtedly difficult for French speakers who have engrained the form 'Elle a vu' (laŭforme egala al 'She has seen', and which covers both She has seen and She saw) together with a simple past 'Elle vit' whose usage is not the same as She saw.

Maybe, there is something about the passive in Dutch and German which makes grasping ata/ita difficult, whereas deep in the verb system of English there is distinction which has a similar foundation - even if this distinction is not regularly made explicit by the use of separate verb forms.

Perhaps, I should say that the ata/ita distinction is easy to learn from examples (or from dictionary definitions) provided that your mother tongue does not sabotage your efforts because it has trained you in a different mapping of the world, and of which you are no longer conscious.

Kirilo, I am sure that your 'little paper' is most erudite and uses appropriate language for your target audience but for me (a bear with a little brain) it is heavy going.

However I did get the impression that Esperanto is a rich and earthy language with its telefikaj verboj and where things may be expressed semi-zoologie (smiley). Even when you use terms that look as though any Esperantist should be able to understand, like paroltempo and referenctempo, I am confused.

In a TV debate between politicians the time for each speaker may be strictly allocated. That is of course his paroltempo. And I suppose the referenctempo is, for example, how long it takes Google to deliver the search results.

"In my speech I was not referring to the resources of the state taken by EU immigrants." Hmm? Which is the paroltempo, or the referenctempo, or the okaztempo?

I always find linguistic arguments easier to follow through examples, and you give us a long list of examples of Zamenhofian usage, but I couldn't see exactly what sin he was accused of. (By the way curious how many come from the translation of Marta).

Anything that is not a manifestion of atismo is, in my simple-minded understanding, in the itista kampo.

There are one or two in the list that don't sound right. 7. Nun ĝi finis sian servadon kaj estis amita sounds odd. But most of them seem fine.

sudanglo:
There are one or two in the list that don't sound right. 7. Nun ĝi finis sian servadon kaj estis amita sounds odd. But most of them seem fine.

This, incidentally, is one of the (few) examples that confused me from the Tekstaro. I was going to bring it up as a counter-example to both PMEG and PAG (surely this is not supposed to be a pseudo-pluperfect here), but I decided this wasn't important enough.

There are some other venial "sins" committed in the Tekstaro, including unun. This leads me to think one shouldn't always uncritically accept usages found in it.

Sudanglo skribis: However, there is also the question of interference from a previously highly practised skill (no longer consciously available.) If your mother tongue doesn't know the ata/ita distinction, then this may be a brake on the acquisition, through some sort of unconscious false presumption. Maybe, there is something about the passive in Dutch and German which makes grasping ata/ita difficult, whereas deep in the verb system of English there is distinction which has a similar foundation - even if this distinction is not regularly made explicit by the use of separate verb forms.

Sudanglo, your observations are interesting. In my opinion, my original question about deprimata versus deprimita pertains to a grammatical construction that does not exist in the languages that I know.
In English, you can say: 'I have read a book'. It is clear that you have finished reading this book but it does not explain when you finished it. The same applies to Dutch and German. In Dutch: 'Ik heb een boek gelezen.'
If you want to explain when you read that book, you probably would say: 'Last week I read a book' or last night I finished reading a book' etc. The same goes for the Dutch language. 'Verleden week las ik een boek. Gisterenavond las ik het boek uit.' (heb ik het boek uitgelezen). I know the latter is slightly different from 'I finished reading a book' but the principle is the same. In the passive format: 'Last week a book was read by me' (Verleden week werd een boek bij mij gelezen). Again, English and Dutch have the same type of expressions. Yes, I know that you would not ordinarily use this latter sentence in the passive mode.
When you say that you are depressed (sorry once again I repeat this word), you mean that you are depressed right now. There is no ambiguity. The same applies to Dutch: Ik ben gedeprimeerd (teneergeslagen etc). You would know precisely what that person means.
As matter of interest Sudanglo, as I am sure you know, English belongs to the Germanic language group as do Dutch and German. More precisely, English is a West Germanic language, so are among other Dutch and German (Frisian, Flemish, Afrikaans, Yiddish as well). So, the question arises how little different our respective mother tongues may be in every day use.
It is my turn to apologise for waffling but the subject is interesting to me. As I stated in a previous post, I am much closer to understanding the finer points of the passive -ata and -ita participles. I agree with you that it is also much easier to learn from examples rather than following the purely linguistic arguments pro and against.
Thank you for your thoughtful input.

What is well known to native English speakers is the idea of extension of an action versus the completion. For example I have been reading a very interesting book on China, my car is being repaired etc. (What are those in Dutch?)

So for English speakers, perhaps the only novel use of -ata is in the case of actions that inherently have no temporal extension, but where in Esperanto -ata is used through the extension of the act coming through repetition, or from an abstract idea of permanence (eg in a general truth).

Despite insistence in earlier posts that you might well use 'being broken' in English, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which this would be natural for duration, and in the case of repetition, 'broken' is likely to be adequate. A politician's promises are often broken.

It is certainly true that I am depressed means that you are in a certain state (currently), but then also the lock is broken means that it is in a certain state. The currentness in Esperanto is expressed by estas.

Of course there is no tangible action with mental depression like there is with breaking an object, but it seems clear that the depression is being conceived as like being put down, like the physical depression of a key (on a keyboard).

I did find an instance of deprimata in the Tekstaro Tial la “propagandantoj” facile estas deprimataj de pesimismo. The context makes it clear that this is the repeated experience of 'finvenkistoj'.

The case of okupi, as has been previously pointed out, is different. There you can have duration and repetition.

Nur la malsupra parto de la konstruo estas okupata de la loĝantoj
Ĉu via edzo estas tre okupata?

Or we may be just viewing the occupying, so to speak, as an event, (leading to a state of being engaged or not free).

li estas ĝuste nun plene okupita per interesa verko
la komerco ĉesis, la ŝoseoj estis okupitaj de la regimentoj
post du alklakoj sur tirmenuoj, la tuta ekrano estas okupita kaj ne plu restas spaco por pluaj elektoj
li malsupreniris en la unuan etaĝon, kie estis neokupita ĉambro

sudanglo:Despite insistence in earlier posts that you might well use 'being broken' in English, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which this would be natural for duration and in the case of repetition, 'broken' is likely to be adequate.

Breakage doesn't have to be something that occurs instantaneously, as if something starts out intact and then suddenly crosses a rubicon after which one deems it "broken". It's quite possible to perceive of 'breakage' as something that happens gradually over a duration.

A few examples from typing "being broken" into Google:

The furniture is being broken up for firewood
There is the potential for this to occur when asbestos-containing material is being broken
Figure 3.6 shows data that is being broken into packets

Equally I don't see a problem with repetition. Some other examples I dug out:

Fossil fuel promises are being broken, report says.
Various taboos of international life are being broken.
It is time for you to act, LORD; your law is being broken.

In all of these cases I don't see how "rompata" poses any difficulties. Perhaps I'm missing something?

NoordZee:
When you say that you are depressed (sorry once again I repeat this word), you mean that you are depressed right now. There is no ambiguity. The same applies to Dutch: Ik ben gedeprimeerd (teneergeslagen etc). You would know precisely what that person means.
As matter of interest Sudanglo, as I am sure you know, English belongs to the Germanic language group as do Dutch and German. More precisely, English is a West Germanic language, so are among other Dutch and German (Frisian, Flemish, Afrikaans, Yiddish as well). So, the question arises how little different our respective mother tongues may be in every day use.

I think all germanic languages have only two participles, while Esperanto has six. These two in effect are one active, which is used to express present tense, and one passive for past tense. That means they are mainly used like ANT and IT respectively. (Future tenses are not discussed here.)

If we - I as a Swedish speaker and you as a Dutch speaker - simply copy patterns from our mother tongues, then we most likely will end up overusing these two. In cases when AT and INT would be needed in Esperanto, our languages either use other expressions or use ANT/IT outside their core meaning. English also has the progressive form, and perhaps English speakers therefore have a tendency to use ANT to simulate progersivity/duration. I think none of these habits will create big problems. I even have the impression that Zamenhof himself was under influence of these patterns.

Finnish has a system which works as Esperanto is supposed to work: Both present and past participles in both active and passive, combined with both tenses of the finite verb:
Estas depresanta, estas depresata, estas depresinta, estas depresita are about a present situation.
Estis depresanta, estis depresata, estis depresinta, estis depresita are about a situation in the past.

tommjames:In all of these cases I don't see how "rompata" poses any difficulties. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I also started wondering if I was missing something. The breaking of the Berlin wall was quite an extended process. Would it not be possible to use the verb rompi for that? (Perhaps English does not use "breaking" here. "Breaking up"? "Taking down"? But the question is about Esperanto.)

Rugxdoma:Would it not be possible to use the verb rompi for that? (Perhaps English does not use "breaking" here. "Breaking up"? "Taking down"? But the question is about Esperanto.)

I would probably use 'faligi' for tearing down a wall, but I don't see how 'rompi' or 'disrompi' would be unsuitable. And yes, that's a good example of breaking something over a duration; if someone at the time had said "la muro estas rompata" I certainly wouldn't have found it strange (had I been an Esperanto speaker back then!)

sudanglo:
Despite insistence in earlier posts that you might well use 'being broken' in English, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which this would be natural for duration, and in the case of repetition, 'broken' is likely to be adequate.

Ultimately, it's not whether the continuous passive is used in English for a given verb (or any other language), but rather whether the concept makes sense on its own terms. As far as rompi and (at least most) other so-called non-duration verbs are concerned, I don't have a problem imagining them taking place over a longer period of time, if not as a continuous process, then at least as something sporadic or repetitive. Maybe your "ear", your intuitions, are different.

It just seems unimaginative to make a strict PAG-like distinction here. It doesn't consider the very diverse contexts in which the passives might be used, and forces us into a kind of prescriptivism where we have to worry about adhering to arcane grammatical categories that nobody else seems to care about (at least if the Tekstaro is any indication).