Ir ao conteúdo
Responder

Ana Pana, part 6 of the story in the first sentence, why is "ol" used?

de drugulas, 8 de abril de 2015

Mensagens: 27

Idioma: English

drugulas (Mostrar o perfil) 8 de abril de 2015 21:55:04

On Ana Pana in the story on the first line there is this sentence:

"Mi nun estas en la lasta jaro antaŭ ol mi povos studi ĉe universitato"

I don't understand why "ol" is used in this sentence, I would appreciate any help.

thanks

nornen (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 01:37:44

In Esperanto "antaŭ ol" is a fixed expression meaning "before" in the temporal sense. Don't try to seperate this expression, but take these two words together as if they were only one.

Mi skribis cxi t

Tempodivalse (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 02:16:17

It is a vestige of the Russian set phrase прежде чем + verb - literally, "before than", but the English meaning is "prior to", "before (action)". It tends to confuse non-Slavic speakers, but its usage is widespread.

On the other hand, people will almost always say post kiam as opposed to post ol (though in principle the latter is OK). It's a little idiosyncracy in the language.

If you don't like this asymmetry, you can always say antaŭ kiam, which also has considerable precedent.

drugulas (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 03:26:09

Thank you, I had a really hard time understanding this, it was driving me crazy.

dankon

drugulas (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 03:52:54

This is off topic but I have another question. the suffix -ad- continuous or repeated action (-ation, -ing).
and the Participles -ant- present active participle (-ing). what are the differences? from what I have seen they both do the same thing.

I found both in the grammar section and still cant see the difference

-ad- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/afik...

-anta- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/part...

Alkanadi (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 07:14:18

drugulas:This is off topic but I have another question. the suffix -ad- continuous or repeated action (-ation, -ing).
and the Participles -ant- present active participle (-ing). what are the differences? from what I have seen they both do the same thing.

I found both in the grammar section and still cant see the difference

-ad- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/afik...

-anta- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/part...
I am not 100% sure, but this is how I see it.

Parolado = Continual talking (a speech).

Parolanto = Speaker
Parolanta = A person or thing that has the attribute of speaking.
Parolante = While speaking

So in other words, the parolanto gives the parolado. Parolante, such a person was parolanta.

drugulas (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 14:36:45

Alkanadi:
drugulas:This is off topic but I have another question. the suffix -ad- continuous or repeated action (-ation, -ing).
and the Participles -ant- present active participle (-ing). what are the differences? from what I have seen they both do the same thing.

I found both in the grammar section and still cant see the difference

-ad- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/afik...

-anta- http://en.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/konciza/part...
I am not 100% sure, but this is how I see it.

Parolado = Continual talking (a speech).

Parolanto = Speaker
Parolanta = A person or thing that has the attribute of speaking.
Parolante = While speaking

So in other words, the parolanto gives the parolado. Parolante, such a person was parolanta.
thanks, I think I understand now. -ad- means continual and is used to give the name of the action.
martelo - hammer, martelado - hammering, marteladi to be hammering often or a long time.

thanks this helped a lot.

Tempodivalse (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 17:28:51

"-ado" forms the action from the corresponding verb. Sometimes it's helpful to think of it as a pseudo-gerund.

"-adi", meanwhile, stresses a prolonged or repeated duration. For those who know Greek or a Slavic language, it can be roughly viewed as an emphatic imperfective aspect (though it is used far less frequently than the imperfective aspect in those languages), e.g. La malsataj geknaboj plendadis dum la tuta ekskurso.

nornen (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 20:34:18

Tempodivalse:"-ado" forms the action from the corresponding verb. Sometimes it's helpful to think of it as a pseudo-gerund.
This always has bothered me. Why has one root (-ad-) two different meanings: simple nominalization when used with nominal endings and at the same time repetition or duration when used with verbal endings?

According to the F, -ad- simply denotes duration:
Zamenhof:ad - denotes duration of action
When did this root acquire its second function as general nominalizator (as indicated e.g. here)?
Has Z ever pronounced himself about this topic (lingva respondo etc)?

----
Especially with parol/. I see a difference between parolo and parolado.
- Mi aŭskultis hieraŭ la parolon de nia avo.
= Ho ve, mi ankaŭ aŭskultis ĝin. Tio ne estis parolo, sed kvinhora parolado.

Tempodivalse (Mostrar o perfil) 9 de abril de 2015 22:00:06

nornen:This always has bothered me. Why has one root (-ad-) two different meanings: simple nominalization when used with nominal endings and at the same time repetition or duration when used with verbal endings?
Interesting that the original Esperanto only used -ad- for the first meaning. I hadn't noticed. Another case of the language evolving!

Time for some off-the-cuff analysis on the subject.

You can often slap an -o directly onto a verbal root to indicate a simple non-durational nominalization. For instance, you can say La elkora rido min feliĉigis por la restaĵo de la tago. Ridado here would suggest laughter over a longer period of time. Rido - one act of laughing (i.e. a laugh); ridado - laughing, presumably more than once. Peto - one act of requesting (i.e. a request); petado - requesting; etc. (I'm sure there are counterexamples; I'm just trying to think big-picture here.)

Off the top of my head, the main place where this doesn't work is for obviously substantive (noun) roots, e.g. martelo, which has to refer to the object itself and not one instance of martelado (a hammer is not an act of hammering).

So it seems that, as long as you're dealing with verbal roots, -o and -ado are, in very general terms, the noun equivalents of -i and -adi [1].

However, with substantive roots, suddenly -i does not map onto -o at all: you have to skip to -ado! This leaves the question: what is the appropriate noun-ization of marteladi? Martelado as well? But now we lose the repetition/non-repetition distinction that was fairly apparent in pairs like kuro - kurado, peto - petado.

However, this looks to be a theoretical complication only. In practice, I haven't seen people getting confused.

----
[1] However, -adi in practice tends to emphasise the duration/repetitiveness more than -ado, so it is used less. FWIW, I use both almost equally often, perhaps under the influence of Slavic aspects.

De volta à parte superior