پستها: 57
زبان: English
lagtendisto (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 5:27:00
johmue (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 6:34:14
Eltwish:Johmue, are you basing your strong opposition to ĉu-less questions on facts of fluent speaker usage, or on a prescription you could cite? I see the PMEG is not nearly as harsh on ĉu-forlaso (see here). If the people you speak with often never omit ĉu, though, then I retract my doubt - I only ask because in my experiece, ĉu-omission in certain contexts (such as "ĉio preta?" ) is quite common.In my experience it is really uncomon to omit it. The experienced speakers I am in touch with, very rarely omit it.
But anyway, even if it is common in some contexts and you could find quotations where someone omits it and no language police will arrest you, you shouldn't encourage people to omit it. There are many common mistakes that you often hear among average speakers, such as accusative, transitivity, you name it. I hear somthing like "La somero komencas." way more often than the omission of "ĉu" but I still consider it an error.
Citing Bertilo
PMEG:Tia forlaso estas akceptebla, kiam la tuta frazo estas draste mallongigita.That's not the case with "ĉu". "ĉu" is just one more particle, so its omission does not shorten the sentence drastically.
johmue (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 6:37:06
spreecamper:Is it possible to ask this way? 'Ne estas eble por fumu ĉi tie?'Well the construction "por fumu" is strange, maybe a typo.
I would say "ĉu ne eblas fumi ĉi tie?". Or "Ne eblas fumi ĉi tie, ĉu?"
Alkanadi (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 8:37:50
johmue:In my experience it is really uncomon to omit it. The experienced speakers I am in touch with, very rarely omit it.That is good news because I think it is a cool language feature. It is like a verbal question mark.
Sometimes in English, we have to say "are you asking me or telling me" because the intonation is not clear. I think it is better to use Cxu.
sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 9:41:26
To a speaker of a tonal language, any "interrogative" intonation here may well be meaningless and result in the sentence being interpreted as a statement of fact.Well Tempo, why don't we ask a Chinese speaker, how a question may be asked in Chinese without an explicit question word, or some variation of syntax. We don't need to 'deduce' what happens. We can discover what happens.
Johmue. Nobody is saying that in course books asking a question without ĉu (or a K-word) should be taught. But the reality is that both in the spoken language and the written language such 'truncated' sentences are used (*).
Deny this and you are implying that natural sounding dialogue cannot be represented in Esperanto - only Spock like explicit clarity is permitted. (And this conflicts with the standard propaganda position - suitable for all the purposes a language is normally used.)
(*)As an experiment I flicked open a copy of Valano's policier Ĉu li venis trakosme?, and it took me less than half a minute to find an example.
Ĝis la kioma? Proksimume noktomezo. Kaj poste?
And from Simenon's La Flava Hundo translated into Esperanto
Jes, li iris hejmen por vespermanĝi. La adreso?.. - demandis ĵurnalisto, kiu havis nenion plu por fari?
johmue (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 9:52:47
sudanglo:Johmue. Nobody is saying that in course books asking a question without ĉu (or a K-word) should be taught. But the reality is that both in the spoken language and the written language such 'truncated' sentences are used (*).The examples you are giving here are not omissions of "ĉu", which is the topic of our thread here.
[...]
They are examples, where the omission of the question word drastically shortens the sentence. An extreme example for that which is very common is: "Kaj?" (meaning "So what?" ) Another: "Kaj vi?" ("How about you?" )
In contrast to that, the omission of "ĉu" is not justifiable by a drastic shortening of the sentence. Therefore there's no reason to drop it in colloquial language.
sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 10:15:42
It still doesn't follow that in Esperanto this will lead to misunderstanding with truncated sentences. In the UK, it is not uncommon for the speech of Australians to be ridiculed for the use of a question intonation in statements. This doesn't seem however to lead to misunderstanding by speakers of British English.
tommjames (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 10:16:41
Alkandi:Is this word necessary?My view on this would be sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on context and who it is you're talking to. Intonation or context will often be sufficient to get by, but as others have already mentioned that is by no means guaranteed, and an "international language" needs to be clear for everybody.
If you're asking about whether Esperanto could have gotten along just as well without its inclusion in the language, I would say no, definitely not.
As noted, sometimes leaving out "ĉu" (and other question words) is a reality in the language, so one must tolerate its occasional omission without getting too worked up about it, or invoking prescriptivist doctrines.
sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 10:46:58
The examples you are giving here are not omissions of "ĉu", which is the topic of our thread here.It is an empirical question as to whether truncated question sentences in Esperanto are more often, in an expanded form, ĉu sentences or K-word sentences.
However, we are clearly in the same territory.
Indeed, it may be that it is sometimes not possible to say, since the expansion might be reasonably couched in the form of a k-word question or a ĉu question.
Another: "Kaj vi?" ("How about you?" )Given the remarks that have been made about intonation as a marker, I wonder how you imagine Kaj vi? is distinguished from Kaj vi! meaning and that includes you.
johmue (نمایش مشخصات) 12 مارس 2015، 11:16:52
sudanglo:Context.Another: "Kaj vi?" ("How about you?" )Given the remarks that have been made about intonation as a marker, I wonder how you imagine Kaj vi? is distinguished from Kaj vi! meaning and that includes you.