Metsis:MiMalamasLaAnglan,

If you are interested in development of the verb tenses, I strongly recommend to read the article by Miville. The bottom line is, that originally E-o made a clear distinction between tense and aspect – like Polish and Russian (perhaps all Slavic languages) do. This distinction was lost, when E-o gained ground among Germanic and Romance language speakers.

Io estis farita de iu is the correct form with regard to the ata-ita-diskuto.

The -iĝi verb forms denote, that the subject becomes something instead of doing it to an object. English is notoriously poor to make this distinction.

He opens the door : Li malfermas la pordon (He makes the door to open)
The door opens : La pordo malfermiĝas (The door becomes open for some unspecific reason)

Since fariĝis is in the active voice, de in that context can't denote agent. Theoretically it could mark object, but in any case io fariĝis de iu doesn't make sense.

As a general rule it is almost always better to use oni, when you want express passive voice. Oni is called indefinite pronoun and corresponds to the man passive in most Germanic languages (English being an exception again). In other words oni faris ion translates to man hat etwas getan in German or man har gjort någonting in Swedish. In English this would be something like "(some unspecified) someone did something" or "something was done".

The topic, when to use de and when el, would be pretty long – and a hard one, not least because of the multiple meanings of de (and IMHO some of the meanings are contradictory). Try to wade through the entries in PIV .

Mi legis la artikolon de Miville, sed li/ŝi ne klare diris, kiel oni indikus la aliajn verbtensojn. Ĉu vi scias bazajn regulojn de la maniero de uzi la vortojn "de" kaj "el"?

Should I have posted this in English?

Se mi korekte komprenis la mencitan afiŝon de Miville, E-o origine havis sekvajn verboformojn

perfekta aspekto

• prezenco (as-formo): –
  
• preterito (is-formo): faris/ekbezonis
  
• futuro (os-formo): faros/ekbezonos

neperfekta aspekto

• prezenco (as-formo): faras/bezonas
  
• preterito (is-formo): faradis/bezonis
  
• futuro (os-formo): farados/bezonos

depende de, ĉu la verbo fundamente havas perfektan (fari) aŭ neperfektan (bezoni) karakteron. Sed la parolantoj de ne-slavaj lingvoj ne komprenis tiajn karakterojn, kaj oni pli malpli forlasis ek- kaj -ad formojn.

Pri la uzo de "de" kaj "el" vidu mian afiŝon (en la angla) ĉi tie en Lernu.

(In principle one should stick to the language the thread is marked to be in. However slipping to E-o from another language is more tolerated than vice versa.)

Metsis:Se mi korekte komprenis la mencitan afiŝon de Miville, E-o origine havis sekvajn verboformojn

perfekta aspekto

• prezenco (as-formo): –
  
• preterito (is-formo): faris/ekbezonis
  
• futuro (os-formo): faros/ekbezonos

neperfekta aspekto

• prezenco (as-formo): faras/bezonas
  
• preterito (is-formo): faradis/bezonis
  
• futuro (os-formo): farados/bezonos

depende de, ĉu la verbo fundamente havas perfektan (fari) aŭ neperfektan (bezoni) karakteron. Sed la parolantoj de ne-slavaj lingvoj ne komprenis tiajn karakterojn, kaj oni pli malpli forlasis ek- kaj -ad formojn.

Pri la uzo de "de" kaj "el" vidu mian afiŝon (en la angla) ĉi tie en Lernu.

(In principle one should stick to the language the thread is marked to be in. However slipping to E-o from another language is more tolerated than vice versa.)

Dankon pro tio. Tamen, mi havas demandon pri "de" kaj "el". Kial "fali de tablo" kaj "eliri el urbo" ne uzas la saman prepozicion? Ĉu tio estas ĉar "eliri" komencas kun "el-"? Mi provos lerni la malsamecojn inter "de" kaj "el".

Thanks for that. However, I have a question about de and el. Why don't fali de tablo and eliri el urbo use the same preposition? Is that because eliri starts with "el-"? I will try to learn the differences between de and el.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
Thanks for that. However, I have a question about de and el. Why don't fali de tablo and eliri el urbo use the same preposition? Is that because eliri starts with "el-"? I will try to learn the differences between de and el.

Nedankinde. A rule of thumb is, that the E-o prepositions should be understood rather literally. Fali de tablo but eliri el urbo has to do with the openness of the starting point. A table is an open space, while a town is a closed one. Or in other words something, say a ball, isn't (normally) inside a table, but on it before falling off. You are most likely in a town, not on it before leaving it.

This literal reading means, that you have to be careful, when translating non-E-o idioms to E-o. For instance in English you can ride on a train, but "rajdi sur trajno" means, that you bestride on a train's roof. Even taking a train can cause funny mental images, so the safest way is to "veturi per trajno".

Prepositions can be hard. For me "aĉeti en vendejo" causes a mental image, where one keeps buying in the store without finding a way out. To buy and leave the store with the goods you bought is "aĉeti el vendejo" to me. Or my favourite mental image misunderstanding. "Fingroj sur mano" raises a macabre image at me, that some chopped one's fingers off and strewed them on the hand. While for me natural "fingroj en mano" raises at some an equally macabre image, where chopped fingers are stuffed into one's hand.

Metsis:
Nedankinde. A rule of thumb is, that the E-o prepositions should be understood rather literally. Fali de tablo but eliri el urbo has to do with the openness of the starting point. A table is an open space, while a town is a closed one. Or in other words something, say a ball, isn't (normally) inside a table, but on it before falling off. You are most likely in a town, not on it before leaving it.

This literal reading means, that you have to be careful, when translating non-E-o idioms to E-o. For instance in English you can ride on a train, but "rajdi sur trajno" means, that you bestride on a train's roof. Even taking a train can cause funny mental images, so the safest way is to "veturi per trajno".

Prepositions can be hard. For me "aĉeti en vendejo" causes a mental image, where one keeps buying in the store without finding a way out. To buy and leave the store with the goods you bought is "aĉeti el vendejo" to me. Or my favourite mental image misunderstanding. "Fingroj sur mano" raises a macabre image at me, that some chopped one's fingers off and strewed them on the hand. While for me natural "fingroj en mano" raises at some an equally macabre image, where chopped fingers are stuffed into one's hand.

So for de and el, should I say that something is de a physical object, but el a place? It makes sense to me to use sur, en, and most of the other prepositions literally.

I tend to use adverbs to say things like rajdi/veturi trajne and aĉeti vendeje. Is that correct?

Bringing back something that we discussed earlier, the book Esperanto: Learning and Using the International Language says that one can say fare de, far' de, far, and deper in addition to estis farita de to mean "was done by". It also says that you can/should use disde to mean "from".

"Veturi trajne aŭ aŭte" - I would use abverb if there is an alternative.
But "rajdi ĉevale", not "trajne".
Use "disde" if something is divided to two parts.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
So for de and el, should I say that something is de a physical object, but el a place? It makes sense to me to use sur, en, and most of the other prepositions literally.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Both de and el, but especially the former, have many uses (cf. English from and of, and no, they are not 1:1). Some could say, that de has too many uses. Only one use case is about a starting point of a real movement. I strongly recommend to read PIV with time as it has a complete list of cases with good examples for both prepositions.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
I tend to use adverbs to say things like rajdi/veturi trajne and aĉeti vendeje. Is that correct?

Adverbs are fine, but read what Sergejm said. And rajdi literally requires, that you bestride, ĉevale, bicikle rajdi (since an adverb describes a verb somehow, one usually puts the adverb just before the verb) or rajdi per ĉevalo, biciklo.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:
Bringing back something that we discussed earlier, the book Esperanto: Learning and Using the International Language says that one can say fare de, far' de, far, and deper in addition to estis farita de to mean "was done by". It also says that you can/should use disde to mean "from".

I don't know anything about that book. It may well present a case, where disde can be translated to "from", but anyway disde requires, that something is divided into more than one part as Sergejm pointed out.

Remember, that one should always prefer "oni + active form of verb" to any "esti + passive participle form of verb" constructions. Oni-expressions are much easier to form and get right, and you have one potential fuss about de less (in the active voice de cannot denote any agent).

Metsis:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Both de and el, but especially the former, have many uses (cf. English from and of, and no, they are not 1:1). Some could say, that de has too many uses. Only one use case is about a starting point of a real movement. I strongly recommend to read PIV with time as it has a complete list of cases with good examples for both prepositions.

I will try to do that.

Metsis:
Adverbs are fine, but read what Sergejm said. And rajdi literally requires, that you bestride, ĉevale, bicikle rajdi (since an adverb describes a verb somehow, one usually puts the adverb just before the verb) or rajdi per ĉevalo, biciklo.

You taught me the word rajdi in an example of incorrect usage and I didn't realize that it wasn't meant to be correct when you said rajdi sur trajno. Sorry about that.

Metsis:
I don't know anything about that book. It may well present a case, where disde can be translated to "from", but anyway disde requires, that something is divided into more than one part as Sergejm pointed out.

What do you mean by "divided into more than one part"?

Metsis:
Remember, that one should always prefer "oni + active form of verb" to any "esti + passive participle form of verb" constructions. Oni-expressions are much easier to form and get right, and you have one potential fuss about de less (in the active voice de cannot denote any agent).

How do you express the agent in an oni expression?

Metsis:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Both de and el, but especially the former, have many uses (cf. English from and of, and no, they are not 1:1). Some could say, that de has too many uses. Only one use case is about a starting point of a real movement. I strongly recommend to read PIV with time as it has a complete list of cases with good examples for both prepositions.

I will try to do that.

Metsis:
Adverbs are fine, but read what Sergejm said. And rajdi literally requires, that you bestride, ĉevale, bicikle rajdi (since an adverb describes a verb somehow, one usually puts the adverb just before the verb) or rajdi per ĉevalo, biciklo.

I did not know the word rajdi before you showed me the example of incorrect usage rajdi sur trajno. I am sorry for misunderstanding that word.

Metsis:
I don't know anything about that book. It may well present a case, where disde can be translated to "from", but anyway disde requires, that something is divided into more than one part as Sergejm pointed out.

What do you mean by "divided into more than one part"? Can I have an example?

Metsis:
Remember, that one should always prefer "oni + active form of verb" to any "esti + passive participle form of verb" constructions. Oni-expressions are much easier to form and get right, and you have one potential fuss about de less (in the active voice de cannot denote any agent).

How do you express the agent in an oni expression?

Aargh, I had to Google for a "disde" example and I found this in Wiktionary:

If you do not get out of my sight this instant, I...
Se vi ne tuj foriras disde mian vidon, mi...

"dis" means apart, separate. I'm not sure, what exactly "de" means here. However I would have used "for de mia vido", away of my sight, but I might be wrong.

Well, if you know, who or what is causing something, then you use normal active voice. It's the same thing in English. Which one is easier, "I do it" vs. "it is done by me"? I just recently wrote about, what the passive voice can mean in another thread here in Lernu. (As a footnote based on my native language for me the real passive voice is the impersonal one, The one with an agent is for me just an overly complicated way of expressing things. For an international auxilliary language simpler is better.)