Saluton!

En 'La puzlo Esperanto', la lokucio 'ili povus veni' estas tradukita kiel 'they could come'.

Mia demando estas, kiel oni dirus 'they could have come'? 'Ili povus esti venintaj'?

Bonvolu korektu iujn erarojn ke mi estas farigita.

Dankon!

This is a tough one, because it depends on how you interpret the phrase. If you mean 'They might have been able to come (if circumstances had permitted)' then I would agree with your translation.
If, however, we interpret it as 'They had the ability to come' the Esperanto is Ili povis veni. In this case I wouldn't use povus because their ability to come is not in doubt, and so not hypothetical.

Don't forget to provide an English translation with extended E-o texts apart from the translation problem in this forum, BTW.

Thanks for your help!

Well, the complete sentence was, 'Se ili volus, ili povus veni', which has been translated as 'If they wanted, they could come'.

I think a better translation would be, 'If they had wanted to, they could have come', or 'Had they wanted to, they could have come'.

Yes, I'll include an English translation henceforth. Komencantula Eraro!

It's not a form that gets used a lot, since the simpler forms already mentioned communicate the idea perfectly well. But "povintus" is, I think, the word you want for "could have"

Rohan:Thanks for your help!

Well, the complete sentence was, 'Se ili volus, ili povus veni', which has been translated as 'If they wanted, they could come'.

I think a better translation would be, 'If they had wanted to, they could have come', or 'Had they wanted to, they could have come'.

Yes, I'll include an English translation henceforth. Komencantula Eraro!

I am a bit confused here:
"se ili volus, ili povus veni"
we are at a party, they haven't showed up and I say if they wanted they could come. That was my understanding of the sentence.

However if it meant "had they wanted to, they could have come", it means the party was yesterday, they did not come and today I make that comment.

In any case, whatever the correct translation is for the sentence: se ili volus, ili povus veni. How do you say the other in E-o.

Thanks

edmoreira: "had they wanted to, they could have come".

Taking a leaf out of RiotNrrd's book, I suggest se ili volintus, ili povintus (which is equivalent to se ili estus volintaj, ili estus povintaj).

Miland:
Taking a leaf out of RiotNrrd's book, I suggest se ili volintus, ili povintus (which is equivalent to se ili estus volintaj, ili estus povintaj).

Thanks a lot
Ed

Yes, thanks indeed.

Rohan:Mia demando estas, kiel oni dirus 'they could have come'? 'Ili povus esti venintaj'?

Herein lies a big problem in Esperanto, apparently 117 years after Dr. Zamenhof tried to prevent it.

In English, as in German, and several other languages, there is such a thing a "relative" tenses. For example, "They had read the book, before we bought our copy of it." By using the pluperfect, or what-ya-ma-callit - had read - we show that the reading occurred relatively before the buying.

In 1891 Ludwig Emil Meier wrote an Esperanto "...grammar for German language speakers, in which he presented the passive participles according to the viewpoint of the German conjugation... Zamenhof wrote to A. Dombrowski: 'Meier's canon about the participle is actually bad: if the author, before the printing [of the book] sent to me the manuscript, I would have detained this canon.'" (Citation on request: not to make my pedantic message too long.)

Everything above - give credit to Raymond Schwartz, who wrote a pamphlet in Es-po, titled "Ne Kiel Meier." Schwartz shows that there are only three tenses, moods, modes, etc. in Esperanto. Present, past, future. They are "absolute" , not relative. Participles are used as adjectives only. "Ili estas venintaj" means they are having come, which can be translated, they have come, but "Ili venis",in the same context, can also be tranlated thus.

Initially, as komencanto, I rebelled and felt that the "relative" tenses should be used in Esperanto, exactly as in English, using esti instead of have as the auxilliary verb. But Schwarz has convinced me; and I have found that my writing is much better, clearer, when I stick to 3 absolute tenses, and make sure that the context always makes things clear. That is what has to be done in national languages like Chinese that don't even have any conjugation! It can be done, and effortlessly, once you begin to make it a habit. I have read several novels by non-teutonic-language authors, such as Hungarian, and they never use the difficult constructions. I also find that when I want to use a particliple as an adjective, I had better be consistent in not using them as relative tense participles, so that the adjective will consitently mean what it means as an adjective.

Not clear? Perhaps I am a bit tired, it is late here. If you are ardent to find about about this historic conflict, I recommend Schwarz's booklet. I bought it for $1.00 at the ELNA convention in 1990. Perhaps it is available somewhere, even now. It is:

"Ne Kiel Meier!" by Raymond Schwartz, Publisher: Unuigxo Franca por Esperanto
34, rue de Chabrol, Paris(10e), 1964.

Thank you for your attention!

Bill

Rohan:Mia demando estas, kiel oni dirus 'they could have come'? 'Ili povus esti venintaj'?

In short, I would translate it (e.g.) on an exam, as Ili havis povon veni. In a story, the host of the party could say,"Ili havis auxtomobilon, ili povis veni. Do, kial ne?"