Sudanglo skribis
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?)

Sudanglo, there is a kinship between English and Dutch but naturally there are also differences. No two languages are the same and I have no problem with your saying that perhaps in Dutch and German there may be more problems coming to grips with certain aspects of Esperanto than would apply to native English speaking people. I am sure that certain other aspects of Esperanto grammar may in turn be easier for the Dutch and German speakers. I really do not wish to speculate on this. What is important to me is to find answers to my questions on this forum as and when they arise. I believe that my -ita versus -ata has been very helpfully addressed.

I give you the translation/interpretation of the two sentences above:

• I have been reading a very interesting book on China = Ik ben een zeer interessant boek over China aan het lezen geweest.
  My car is being repaired = Mijn auto wordt gerepareerd.

The first Dutch sentence would not often be heard in this way. I am reading translates as Ik ben aan het lezen. I have been translates as Ik ben geweest. So, instead of to have, the verb to be is used.
The second sentence uses the verb 'worden' which has multiple meanings. Within this context, 'wordt' means 'is in the process of being'. Indeed, there are fundamental differences here.

Rugxdoma:
I think all germanic languages has 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.

Thank you for your comments. In the end, translating from one language into another, rather than understanding a particular language by itself without reference to another language, invariably can lead to confusion or misunderstanding.

Rugxdoma: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.

This is very interesting.

What is in Finnish the difference between "mi depresas" and "mi estas depresanta"? Is it a difference in aspect/aktionsart as in English (progressive/durative/static/gnomic/etc)?

Does Finnish have a passive voice? If yes, is it formed by a copula + passive participle or is it a simple form of the verb? Do you have two passives to distinguish between "static passive" (Zustandspassiv; German: Die Tür ist geschlossen.) and "progressive passive" (Vorgangspassiv; German: Die Tür wird geschlossen)?

nornen:What is in Finnish the difference between "mi depresas" and "mi estas depresanta"?

Cxu vi volis diri "mi estas depresATA"?

Also, just a note. "Mi depresas" = "Mi estas depresa" cxu ne?
In English, verbs function as adjectives in this way. Could we in any way say that English '-ed' is a translation of both Esperanto adjectival '-a', and participle '-ata'.

Are there two '-ed' suffixes in Eng. with different meanings so subtle it makes little sense to talk about?
Are there two redundant adjectival suffixes in the Eo present with the same excruciating difference?

Do the Finns ball this up into one as well?

It's quite possible to perceive of 'breakage' as something that happens gradually over a duration.

The furniture is being broken up for firewood (breaking up)
There is the potential for this to occur when asbestos-containing material is being broken (broken up would be more natural)
Figure 3.6 shows data that is being broken into packets (frozen moment in time?)

It's not that it is impossible to view breaking as having duration. Rather it is not ordinary.

Of course Breaking up, breaking in, breaking out (and quite likely other such phrasal verbs) relate to processes that can have duration (and repetition).

I'm breaking in my new shoes/the new horse.
The clouds are breaking up.
The POW's were caught breaking out of the camp.
The decomposition or breaking down of plastic bags is a slow process.

But not surely: come and watch me while I am breaking the vase.

And Tempo, PAG is surely not being rigidly prescriptive in pointing out that certain verbs relate to certain realities which naturally leads to certain verbs being encountered in one passive form or another.

Hits in the Tekstaro: rompit 169; rompat 5. Of those 5 cases 4 refer to the sound of something (plural) breaking. (Obviously broken objects don't make a sound.) Is the process being imbued with duration? Perhaps.

Oni aŭdis la bruon de la rompataj vazoj kaj la krakon de la seĝoj.

sudanglo:It's not that it is impossible to view breaking as having duration. Rather it is not ordinary.

Well yes, to present a breakage as having duration would be much less common than an instantaneous breakage, but being uncommon is not always the same as being unnatural. I think the examples show that it's not too difficult to imagine perfectly valid uses of "being broken" or "rompata" for durative breakages.

sudanglo:And Tempo, PAG is surely not being rigidly prescriptive in pointing out that certain verbs relate to certain realities which naturally leads to certain verbs being encountered in one passive form or another.

Perhaps I should clarify. I find the distinction made by PAG helpful - essential, perhaps, in explaining why certain passives tend to work in certain ways.

My complaint with PAG is that it says that the less typical forms like amita, rompata etc., are never to be used. This seems like too universal a statement, given the Tekstaro counterexamples. (If PAG had simply said those forms are less often used, then I would have had no problem.)

In the case of PAG's example mia ŝlosilo estas perdita, of course one can scarcely imagine how a single small item could be lost over a long period of time. But we can find other plausible contexts in which there would not be such conceptual problems.

My complaint with PAG is that it says that the less typical forms like amita, rompata etc., are never to be used.

Could you by any chance quote the passage or chaper/section from PAG where it says that?

tommjames:

My complaint with PAG is that it says that the less typical forms like amita, rompata etc., are never to be used.

Could you by any chance quote the passage or chaper/section from PAG where it says that?

Section 110.2, page 146 of 5th edition, pertaining to duration-only verbs:

Nu, ĉar tiuj agoj postlasas neniun rezulton, ĉe la respektivaj verboj oni neniam uzas la rezult-sencajn perfektajn formojn (kun -inta, -ita), sed ĉiam nur la daŭr-sencajn imperfektajn (kun -anta, -ata);

Section 110.3, same page, pertaining to result-only verbs:

Kun ili, kompreneble, oni ne uzas la daŭr-subsencajn imperfektajn formojn (-anta, -ata), sed la rezult-subsencajn perfektajn (-inta, -ita): mia ŝlosilo estas perdita (ne: perdata).

Thanks Tempo. Yes, it does seem like PAG is going a bit over the top there.

"Kiom da tempo kaj laboro estas perdata por la ellernado de fremdaj lingvoj" - Zamenhof