Contenido
Responder

Reflexes

de rikforto, 30 de noviembre de 2015

Aportes: 9

Idioma: English

rikforto (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 14:54:15

What kind of things should a competent Esperantist be able to do without a thought? What do English speakers and Esperantists in general have trouble with?

I think the obvious example of this is the accusative. The "n" should be where the "n" should be, and you should not have to think about it in most sentences. But, anything big or little, is welcome on this list. What things should we be doing as a matter of reflex to say we're competent?

Vestitor (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 15:14:08

Well I suppose to be as competent as in one's own language elements like -igi and -iĝi need to be mastered, but I still find them awkward, unnatural and not entirely clearly defined. For example I came across this near the end of the Duolingo course:

La asocio estis fondita antaŭ kvin jaroj

and also...

La asocio fondiĝis antaŭ kvin jaroj.

Both in the same section. I then thought, "okay, so then what does this mean: 'La asocio fondigis antaŭ kvin jaroj."

I'd say things like that have to be worked out in one's head before one could say they were competent.

erinja (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 15:41:23

Many people would say there is no difference in real-world meaning between "fondigxis" and "estis fondita", and that they are interchangeable.

Some people insist that there is a difference and that we should use "estis fondita". Use of "-igxis" interchangeably with "estis -ita" is a relatively modern usage as Esperanto goes but it's widespread and it helps make certain sentences less wordy.

For the purpose of Duolingo I would treat them interchangeably in a context like the one you mention.

Vestitor (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 16:54:23

There is a difference though. Surely it's the difference between 'was founded' and 'had been founded'? The latter being the passive.

If I'm misguided in this (as I may well be), then what is: 'The association had been founded five years ago'?

erinja (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 20:03:55

Vestitor:There is a difference though. Surely it's the difference between 'was founded' and 'had been founded'? The latter being the passive.

If I'm misguided in this (as I may well be), then what is: 'The association had been founded five years ago'?
There is certainly a technical difference in meaning; an insistence on "had been founded" would require "estis fondita" versus "fondigxis". In real world practical application, things are almost never required to be quite that specific. In the real world they are used interchangeably in a context like "the association was founded five years ago".

If you had a context where you, for whatever reason, needed to insist on "the association had been founded five years previously" (or something like that), then no question, "estis fondita" would be your only choice if you really wanted to emphasize that exact grammatical tense; however, "fondigxis" would still make complete sense, though it lacks the exact grammatical nuance (the association "became founded" five years before its eventual closure -- not a huge difference between that and, the association had been founded five years before its eventual closure). This would be a rather special situation.

At any rate, this had its source in a Duolingo course. Duolingo works on translation. What did it require or accept for translations of these two expressions?

Vestitor (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 21:35:03

I can't remember what it finally accepted, but originally if didn't accept 'had been'.

I don't really agree with your view that they are interchangeable "in the real world". I live in the real world too and both of those two senses exist simultaneously in it for different reasons.
If they both meant more or less the same, one would disappear, but most languages retain the distinction. What for? Not mere choice. If it really is superfluous, Esperanto - as a means of communication clarity - doesn't need a needless complication.

erinja (Mostrar perfil) 30 de noviembre de 2015 23:24:06

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but when I said "real world", I mean Esperanto as it is spoken today. Exact word for word meaning aside - in current Esperanto usage, these forms are used interchangeably in 99% of cases.

Alkanadi (Mostrar perfil) 1 de diciembre de 2015 07:06:06

There should be a smooth flow in speaking and also a mastery of the difficulties that most people face:
http://en.lernu.net/lernado/ekzercoj/mal/index.php

sudanglo (Mostrar perfil) 1 de diciembre de 2015 09:40:00

Vestitor the difference between estis fondita and fondiĝis is highlighted if you consider the effect of a preceding 'jam'.

Mi ne scias kiam la asocio fondiĝis sed ĝi estis jam fondita la 2-an de novembro, ĉar tiam mi membriĝis.

Whilst fondiĝis will often be interchangeable with estis fondita in the meaning of 'was founded' (just as naskiĝis and estis naskita are interchangeable) the effect of the 'jam' is to force the meaning of estis fondita to already founded (or had been founded).

Edit: Theoretically estis x-ita doubles up in the meaning of in that state at that time or action at that time. Mostly the translation into English will be 'was X-ed' so that makes it easy.

X-iĝis will I think always refer to a past action rather than a state.

Consider:

li iris al la granda pordo , kiu estis fermita, kaj ekfrapis.
Li iris al la granda pordo, kiu subite fermiĝis, kaj baris sian vojon.

Volver arriba