Mesaĝoj: 44
Lingvo: English
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-07 20:06:28
Kirilo81:99% of the speakers will see in "mi estas bone" nothing than a beginners error.Well yes, that's because it is an error. It's just not an error for the reason you're stating. If it were then it would be easy to show how it is, yet so far you have not done so.
And I agree with fenris, "Kion vi diris estas bele" looks very weird to me too. Perhaps you would quote the actual passages from those PMEG pages that support this type of phrase? I didn't find anything in either of them.
korona (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-07 20:47:17
This is may be helpful. It's the first part of the section on adverbs and adjectives in "Lingvaj Respondoj" by Zamenhof:
------------------------------------------------------------
Adverbo kaj adjektivo
En la tempo, kiam estis verkata la «Dua Libro», la demando,
cxu oni devas diri «estas varme» aû «estas varma», ne estis
ankoraû absolute decidita kaj la uzado de unu formo estis
egale bona, kiel la uzado de la dua. Nun tiu cxi demando iom
post iom per la uzado akceptis jam decidon pli difinitan.
La adjektivo difinas la substantivon aû la pronomon ha-
vantan sencon de substantivo (responde la demandon kia) kaj
la adverbo difinas la verbon (responde la demandon kiel). Tial
ni diras: «la vetero estas bona», «li kantas bone». Tamen en
la okazoj, kie la difino apartenas precize nek al substantivo aû
pronomo, nek al verbo, ni ofte ne povas decide diri, kian de-
mandon (kia aû kiel) nia difino devas respondi kaj kian for-
mon ni devas uzi. En cxiu alia lingvo tiu cxi duba demando es-
tas decidata per la sankcio de l’ uzado, — en nia lingvo ni
konsilas uzadi en tiuj okazoj cxiam la adverbon; ekzemple:
«estas varme», «estas vere», «gxi estas vera». La vorton «gxi» ni
konsilas cxiam uzi nur por anstataûi objekton aû aferon (kiel
«li» anstataûas personon); sed en esprimoj senpersonaj kaj
senobjektaj ni konsilas neniam uzi la vorton « gxi» (ekzemple:
«hodiaû estas varme» kaj ne «hodiaû gxi estas varme»).
---------------------------------------------------------------
In brief: when in doubt, use the adverb.
For those interested, this is the copy of the book to which I refer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3bwzubbm6ecM2NHa...
------------------------------------------------------------
Adverbo kaj adjektivo
En la tempo, kiam estis verkata la «Dua Libro», la demando,
cxu oni devas diri «estas varme» aû «estas varma», ne estis
ankoraû absolute decidita kaj la uzado de unu formo estis
egale bona, kiel la uzado de la dua. Nun tiu cxi demando iom
post iom per la uzado akceptis jam decidon pli difinitan.
La adjektivo difinas la substantivon aû la pronomon ha-
vantan sencon de substantivo (responde la demandon kia) kaj
la adverbo difinas la verbon (responde la demandon kiel). Tial
ni diras: «la vetero estas bona», «li kantas bone». Tamen en
la okazoj, kie la difino apartenas precize nek al substantivo aû
pronomo, nek al verbo, ni ofte ne povas decide diri, kian de-
mandon (kia aû kiel) nia difino devas respondi kaj kian for-
mon ni devas uzi. En cxiu alia lingvo tiu cxi duba demando es-
tas decidata per la sankcio de l’ uzado, — en nia lingvo ni
konsilas uzadi en tiuj okazoj cxiam la adverbon; ekzemple:
«estas varme», «estas vere», «gxi estas vera». La vorton «gxi» ni
konsilas cxiam uzi nur por anstataûi objekton aû aferon (kiel
«li» anstataûas personon); sed en esprimoj senpersonaj kaj
senobjektaj ni konsilas neniam uzi la vorton « gxi» (ekzemple:
«hodiaû estas varme» kaj ne «hodiaû gxi estas varme»).
---------------------------------------------------------------
In brief: when in doubt, use the adverb.
For those interested, this is the copy of the book to which I refer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3bwzubbm6ecM2NHa...
Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 08:32:28
tommjames:And I agree with fenris, "Kion vi diris estas bele" looks very weird to me too. Perhaps you would quote the actual passages from those PMEG pages that support this type of phrase? I didn't find anything in either of them.No, it's just the combination of the two simple rules I cited: Subordinated clauses can serve as subject or object, and the agreement form with clauses is the adverb.
I can't really understand why we're discussing such basic facts, so I will stop here unless someone comes finally up with evidence from the Fundamento, Zamenhof, or good authors (I'm repeating myself) that prove me wrong.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 09:38:39
Kirilo, you have already given the correct analysis.
Now you might argue that this distinction is not worth making, and allow the adjective to serve the function of both meanings.
But why throw out this distinction? Why not make use of one of the functions of the adverb in Esperanto?
In the end, the primary function of language is communication (in its widest sense, which also covers the expression of, and influencing of, attitudes).
The rules and conventions of language are there to serve this purpose. They are subsidiary, not the master. We don't speak to validate a grammarian's analysis.
Whenever a quality is predicated to a (pro)noun, you need an adjective. kune is not an exception, because it is a kind of state (similar to the local adverbs) and doesn't answer the question "Kia estas la infanoj?".When I say La infanoj estas bonaj, ili ne ĝenos nin, I am characterizing the infanoj. But when I say La infanoj estas bone, ili ne ĝenos nin, I am characterizing the situation.
Now you might argue that this distinction is not worth making, and allow the adjective to serve the function of both meanings.
But why throw out this distinction? Why not make use of one of the functions of the adverb in Esperanto?
In the end, the primary function of language is communication (in its widest sense, which also covers the expression of, and influencing of, attitudes).
The rules and conventions of language are there to serve this purpose. They are subsidiary, not the master. We don't speak to validate a grammarian's analysis.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 09:58:31
Kirilo81:I will stop here unless someone comes finally up with evidence from the Fundamento, Zamenhof, or good authors (I'm repeating myself) that prove me wrong.It's actually up to you to prove your own assertion.
You started out by saying "mi estas bone" is wrong because pronouns are always described by adjectives. Then when it was pointed out that this isn't always the case you allowed for adverbs that show location or state/situation. So the question (which I'm repeating) is whether the "bone" in "mi estas bone" can be said to show a state, in a similar way to how "kune" shows state in "ili estas kune". It requires more than vague talk about linguistic traps and red herring examples to address that question.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 10:02:00
vendu la ĉevalon aŭ faru bonan interŝanĝon. Kion vi faras, estas ĉiam ĝusta. Rajdu al la foiro! - Fabeloj de Anderson.
Kion vi diris, estis bela is simply equivalent to Tio, kion vi diris, estis bela with the tio elided (as has already been said).
It is a comment on what was said, rather than that it was said.
Whether you can approve of something having been expressed with Kion vi diris, (pause) estis bele is perhaps a bit of a moot point.
Kion vi diris, estis bela is simply equivalent to Tio, kion vi diris, estis bela with the tio elided (as has already been said).
It is a comment on what was said, rather than that it was said.
Whether you can approve of something having been expressed with Kion vi diris, (pause) estis bele is perhaps a bit of a moot point.
Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 12:48:51
OK, I checked it myself, and in fact there is an exception to the general rule (in the realm of qualitative predication, with nouns/pronouns agree adjectives, with everything else adverbs), viz when the adjective is an object predicative to a clause (Z: "ni trovis necesa doni la sekvantajn klarigon" ) or a predicative to a relative clause with elided anaphora ("ne povas esti komika, kio estas plorinda" ), see PAG §173, rim. I and §232, rim. IV. It seems that E-o is less regular here than I thought, I will adjust my language use accordingly.
However, this concerns an example I gave, and not the original phrase "mi estas bone". Whether or not you can give a sense to it with some semantic acrobatics, the form would anyhow be blocked because of the natural association with the qualitative adjective.
I couldn't find any example in the Tekstaro [except for V. Varankin, who is notorious for this error], so please provide any here.
However, this concerns an example I gave, and not the original phrase "mi estas bone". Whether or not you can give a sense to it with some semantic acrobatics, the form would anyhow be blocked because of the natural association with the qualitative adjective.
I couldn't find any example in the Tekstaro [except for V. Varankin, who is notorious for this error], so please provide any here.
nornen (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 15:03:03
tommjames:Just to understand your hypothesis: Are you saying that one can use adverbial predicate nouns, when referring to a (temporal) state, and adjectival predicate nouns, when referring to a (general) quality?Kirilo81:I will stop here unless someone comes finally up with evidence from the Fundamento, Zamenhof, or good authors (I'm repeating myself) that prove me wrong.It's actually up to you to prove your own assertion.
You started out by saying "mi estas bone" is wrong because pronouns are always described by adjectives. Then when it was pointed out that this isn't always the case you allowed for adverbs that show location or state/situation. So the question (which I'm repeating) is whether the "bone" in "mi estas bone" can be said to show a state, in a similar way to how "kune" shows state in "ili estas kune". It requires more than vague talk about linguistic traps and red herring examples to address that question.
According to you, the difference between an adverb and an adjective at this position (predicate noun) is the difference between Spanish ser/estar.
Mia patro estas kolera. = Mi papá es enojado. = My father is an angry person.
?Mia patro estas kolere. = Mi papá está enojado. = My father is a gentle person, but he is angry at this precise moment.
Would it be correct, to say that this is your argument?
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 16:13:53
nornen:Are you saying that one can use adverbial predicate nouns, when referring to a (temporal) state, and adjectival predicate nouns, when referring to a (general) quality?I'm not actually saying anything about what one "can do", as that is a broader issue than whether or not something violates a specific grammatical rule. A phrase could be valid grammatically yet still be wrong or evitinda Esperanto - as I believe is the case with the example under discussion.
My argument is simply that if "ili estas kune" is to be deemed grammatically valid, which it undoubtedly is, then you need to explain why "ili estas bone" is not. The question of whether "estas bone" is a valid substitute for the traditional "fartas bone" is a completely separate issue, but in any case I do not advocate that usage, neither do I advocate completely free usage of adverbs following "estas" (like with your 'kolere' example). I simply say that it is not correct to prohibit the phrase on the basis of some dictum about adverbs not being able to describe nouns.
Kirilo seems to have backtracked a bit, and now seems to prohibit the form on semantic grounds ("semantic acrobatics", "blocked by association with qualitative root", etc). Well, besides pointing out the obvious - that this is a different argument - I'll say I don't find that argument too convincing either. The example provided by sudanglo doesn't seem to me all that difficult to parse mentally, and the use of "estas bone" to describe the situation seems quite opportune, particularly for cases where "fartas bone" wouldn't really capture the meaning well enough. I can accept that this is probably not traditional usage, but again - different argument.
DuckFiasco (Montri la profilon) 2015-julio-08 19:08:31
Here is my opinion. I've been using Esperanto since about 2003, but I haven't been to any conventions. So with that in mind...
I think for most learners 99% of the time:
A estas B-a.
* La tago estas bela.
* Mi estas granda/juna/bona/bonstata.
A-i estas B-e. Estas B-e, ke...
* Skribi estas trankvilige.
* Kanti estas bone por la sano.
* Estas oportune, ke li jxus alvenis.
Estas B-e.
* Estas varme hodiaux.
* Estas vintre, surmetu mantelon!
* Estas maltrankvile hejme nun.
The only wrinkle to my mind is when prepositions get involved.
Li estas ekstera / Li estas ekstere. = a subtle difference, with the adverb being most common for describing a location, and the adjective describing some state, like "Liaj problemoj estas enaj."
This is simply because most prepositions need a second argument, and the adverb, for whatever reason, has adopted that role when that second piece is missing.
We might get into stem affiliation, e.g. that bon- communicates a state so -a is the usual ending and -e is a modification. We might also wonder if the conflation of "well" to mean "healthy/feeling happy" as well as "in a good manner" is a denasklingvajxo from people who speak a Germanic or Romance language.
But it's all so much abstraction that it doesn't strike me as useful to casual learners. In my opinion, it will more often than not lead to confusion and mistakes.
If someone submitted "Mi estas bone" to me as a lingvohelpanto on this site, I'd mark it wrong.
Language isn't all rules. It's also the (sometimes quirky) usage of its speakers.
I think for most learners 99% of the time:
A estas B-a.
* La tago estas bela.
* Mi estas granda/juna/bona/bonstata.
A-i estas B-e. Estas B-e, ke...
* Skribi estas trankvilige.
* Kanti estas bone por la sano.
* Estas oportune, ke li jxus alvenis.
Estas B-e.
* Estas varme hodiaux.
* Estas vintre, surmetu mantelon!
* Estas maltrankvile hejme nun.
The only wrinkle to my mind is when prepositions get involved.
Li estas ekstera / Li estas ekstere. = a subtle difference, with the adverb being most common for describing a location, and the adjective describing some state, like "Liaj problemoj estas enaj."
This is simply because most prepositions need a second argument, and the adverb, for whatever reason, has adopted that role when that second piece is missing.
We might get into stem affiliation, e.g. that bon- communicates a state so -a is the usual ending and -e is a modification. We might also wonder if the conflation of "well" to mean "healthy/feeling happy" as well as "in a good manner" is a denasklingvajxo from people who speak a Germanic or Romance language.
But it's all so much abstraction that it doesn't strike me as useful to casual learners. In my opinion, it will more often than not lead to confusion and mistakes.
If someone submitted "Mi estas bone" to me as a lingvohelpanto on this site, I'd mark it wrong.
Language isn't all rules. It's also the (sometimes quirky) usage of its speakers.