If I were to logically apply the clear rules of Esperanto, I would translate sentences like ‘I am depressed, I am occupied’ as ‘Mi estas deprimata, mi estas okupata’. In both sentences, the tense is the present with an ongoing action. However, it seems that the preferred translations in Esperanto are: ‘Mi estas deprimita, mi estas okupita’. In a sense that indicates a past tense and it seems to have been ignored that the action is still ongoing. Do you have any view about this? I am genuinely interested in learning why this perhaps has crept in over the years rather than the strict adherence to a present tense. These types of sentences are naturally quite different from e.g. I am running which translates as: Mi estas kuranta.
I would appreciate very much if you could tell me why deprimita and okupita (and like [passive participles perhaps)are used rather than the technically correct deprimata and okupata in the present tense.
Please see a Verbix Languages conjugation of the verb deprimi: http://wiki.verbix.com/Languages/Esperanto?verb=de...

You've touched upon something that has been animatedly discussed for decades. There were (and probably still are) two camps, one supporting the past participle and one supporting the present participle.

As I recall (somewhat vaguely), the Akademio even weighed in on the issue, preferring the past form, but not condemning the present form. I don't remember the rationale given, but it probably had something do to with the fact that in mi estas deprimata the focus is on you being made depressed actively, at this moment, whereas deprimita is less time-specific, while still not precluding you from also being depressed at this moment (since you are still using estas and not estis).

However, there is a nice alternative to this construction available (which Slavic-language speakers like myself will often intuitively prefer over the participles in most cases): use -iĝ as a pseudo-passive: mi deprimiĝas, mi okupiĝas. The sense is essentially the same, and there is no worry about tense.

----

EDIT: Note also that the participles do not strictly correspond to their English equivalents. You might further explicate the meanings of the two forms roughly as follows:

mi estas deprimata - I am someone who is being made depressed now
mi estas deprimita - I am someone who has been made depressed (still can be depressed now)

The difference is minimal. I wouldn't worry too much about which variant to use, honestly...

NoordZee:...
I would appreciate very much if you could tell me why deprimita and okupita (and like [passive participles perhaps)are used rather than the technically correct deprimata and okupata in the present tense.
Please see a Verbix Languages conjugation of the verb deprimi: http://wiki.verbix.com/Languages/Esperanto?verb=deprimi/quote]A VERY good, thorough, and historical account of this -ata / -ita debate is included in Being Colloquial in Esperanto---and this is available on-line: http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/eo/colloq/colloq20...
It's also a delightful read that will take you deeper into this issue and leave you with a thorough understanding..

Wow, this is cool. I am surprised to discover this debate. I never had a problem, which means either I am onto something, or I have been completely ignorant all these years!

When I first studied Eo from Cresswell and Hartley's Teach Yourself Esperanto in English, I naturally translated the standard English glosses to my vernacular in my head so as to better grasp what was going on.

I would translate a standard sentence like, "The house had been built." to the vernacular: "The house was after being built."

In my neck of the woods one uses the word 'after' to express the aspect of completion as in, "I am after learning Eo.".. which means that the act of learning (no matter how much) is finished..."In the past, I spent some time learning Eo."

You could say that "Esperanto was after being learned," if you wished to use the passive. I might tell my countrymen that Eo is after being learnt by people all over the world - if I was to sell it.

I have always translated the Esperanto 'X-ita' as 'after being X`ed'

So:

I am depressed = Mi estas deprimata.
I am after being depressed = Mi estas deprimita.. (have been~have experience with being) in standard Eng.

I was depressed = Mi estis deprimata.
I was after being depressed = Mi estis deprimita.

We can take this further:

I will be depressed = Mi estos deprimata.
I will be after being depressed = Mi estos deprimita... Maybe a speaker of standard could say it more eloquently, but I think the translation would be something like, "At that point in the future, I will have already suffered depression."

In my mind, the ita=after being puts the participle part of the verb phrase temporally before the axillary esti, which lends a sense of completeness that ata lacks.

Sorry guys, but the ata/ita-debate is mainly about the past tense "estis X-ita/-ata".
In the present tense there can be no aspectual difference both according to itists (as there is no present perfective) and to atists (as they don't recogniza aspect at all).

The difference between "estas -ata" and "estas -ita" is the one between present and present perfect, as -ata expresses an ongoing action and -ita a finished action (which may have caused a state still valid).

Tempodivalse has clarified this with regard to deprimi, but okazi is a bit complicated, because it has two meanings:
1) keep sth./so. occupied
2) start to occupy sth./so. (= ekokupi with meaning 1)
So "mi estas okupata" (1) and "mi estas okupita" (2) can have the same meaning, the former being a bit more dynamic.

NoordZee:However, it seems that the preferred translations in Esperanto are: ‘Mi estas deprimita, mi estas okupita’. In a sense that indicates a past tense and it seems to have been ignored that the action is still ongoing.

The verb estas is in the present tense, so it has not been ignored that the action is still ongoing. The "action" here is rather a description of a state, and this state is ongoing. But embedded in this present "action", is another action, the action of depressing somebody. The form with -ITA indicates that this second action started in the past. If you use the ATA-form instead, you indicate that the action of depressing somebody is taking place now or generally.
Often we are not so interested in specifying anything about this embedded time. Then perhaps the best thing is to use the pattern that is most common in Tekstaro. And of course listen to the arguments of the Akademio and others. The IGXI-form is another alternative.

Which is correct?

Is someone sitting here?
Is this seat taken?

sudanglo:Which is correct?

Is someone sitting here?
Is this seat taken?

The correct forms are:
Is somebody after taking this seat.
Is this seat after being taken.

sudanglo:Which is correct?

Is someone sitting here?
Is this seat taken?

"Is this seat taken?" is better. The literal meaning of "Is someone sitting here?" technically is silly when referring to an empty seat but it's become a colloquial equivalent of "Is this seat taken?" In Esperanto would it make sense to say "Ĉu iu sidas (or-estas sidanta) ĉi-tie?" when pointing to an empty seat or should the wording differ a bit from that?

Polaris:

NoordZee:...
I would appreciate very much if you could tell me why deprimita and okupita (and like [passive participles perhaps)are used rather than the technically correct deprimata and okupata in the present tense.
Please see a Verbix Languages conjugation of the verb deprimi: http://wiki.verbix.com/Languages/Esperanto?verb=deprimi/quote]A VERY good, thorough, and historical account of this -ata / -ita debate is included in Being Colloquial in Esperanto---and this is available on-line: http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/eo/colloq/colloq20...
It's also a delightful read that will take you deeper into this issue and leave you with a thorough understanding..

I am very pleased about the various responses and aim to follow up the suggestion to have a look at the historical account of the debate. I believe my question applies to anything that in English shows as: I am pleased, I am amused, I am occupied, and an endless list of like expressions. To me, the imperfect tense means that it describes action that is on-going. I am walking in the park-mi estas promenanta en la parko. I was walking in the park-mi estis promenanta en la parko. Although it takes place in the past, the action itself was on-going. And that is where the debate starts on the use of passive participles like deprimata and deprimita. I am genuinely interested in the finer points of Esperanto grammar. I understand that I am depressed definitely started in the past (also I was walking in the park), and the action or state in continuing in the present. It is enough to make one's head spin. I shall now see how this was debated on the proposed website.