Contribuții/Mesaje: 27
Limbă: English
trojo (Arată profil) 18 aprilie 2008, 21:16:55
Oŝo-Jabe:You bring up an good point, and "inherent" is pretty close to what immanent means. According to the Reta Vortaro "inherent" in Esperanto is "imanenta". So the sentence could be:How does "Ne permesu, ke ili imanentigu la apokalipson" sound? "Eskato" just seems too obsure to me... of course the original was (by design) kind of obscure too, but at least with the original, even if you didn't know what it meant, you could always look up "eschatology" in the dictionary and figure it out from there. This isn't really the case with "eskato".
Ne permesu, ke ili imanentigu la Eskaton.
"Apokalipso" on the other hand is an official Esperanto word, and according to ReVo can be used to figuratively refer to the end of the world (as in English).
Does this mean that -u is both imperative, and ~something else~?It's traditionally called the "imperative", but its use isn't quite the same as what is called the imperative in most other languages. Basically it expresses the speaker's desire, and it isn't limited to the second person.
erinja (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 14:03:12
As trojo points out, it is used to express a wish, a hope, or a desire. Lots of languages have a subjunctive (including English), though they all have varying rules about when to use it.
In English, the would "should" or "would" is often used for a subjunctive, so the word "should" is often used in English translations of the -u ending in Esperanto.
Go! - Iru! [this is an imperative]
You should go. - Vi iru. [this is a subjunctive]
I think that he should come tomorrow - Mi pensas ke li venu morgaŭ.
I don't want him to go home - Mi ne volas ke li iru hejmen [literally: I don't want that he should go home]
Would that he had lived! - this is a subjunctive in English (though I would not use the -u ending to translate this into Esperanto; past tense subjunctives don't work out very easily in Esperanto. You can see how languages don't always translate one to one with which grammar is used)
It is important that you remain here - Estas grave ke vi restu ĉi tie (subjunctive in both English and Esperanto)
She insisted that I be ready - Ŝi insistis ke mi estu preta (again, subjunctive in both English and Esperanto - it is easy to recognize the subjunctive in this English sentence, because a combination like "I be" wouldn't be found otherwise)
RiotNrrd (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 15:45:04
erinja:In English, the would "should" or "would" is often used for a subjunctive, so the word "should" is often used in English translations of the -u ending in Esperanto.Hmmm... I have been using the conditional form (-us) to express this, based on chapter 9 of Teach Yourself Esperanto. But perhaps I have misinterpreted the use of it?
Go! - Iru! [this is an imperative]
You should go. - Vi iru. [this is a subjunctive]
For example, rather than saying "Vi iru" to say "you should go", I have been saying "Vi irus". Is this incorrect?
awake (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 16:05:55
RiotNrrd:Erinja's useage is correct according to my understanding. The -us is for conditions that are not (yet) realized.erinja:In English, the would "should" or "would" is often used for a subjunctive, so the word "should" is often used in English translations of the -u ending in Esperanto.Hmmm... I have been using the conditional form (-us) to express this, based on chapter 9 of Teach Yourself Esperanto. But perhaps I have misinterpreted the use of it?
Go! - Iru! [this is an imperative]
You should go. - Vi iru. [this is a subjunctive]
For example, rather than saying "Vi iru" to say "you should go", I have been saying "Vi irus". Is this incorrect?
Se mi estus riĉa, mi aĉetus domegon!
If I were rich (I'm not, it's not a real condition), I would buy a mansion (also not something that can be currently made real).
The -us ending also has a meaning of making things more polite
Mi dezirus aĉeti domegon = I would like to buy a mansion (the desire is real, but I'm expressing it in a more polite way than Mi deziras aĉeti domegon = I want to buy a mansion). The first usage is more whimsical, "Gee, I'd like to buy a mansion" I have desire but no real intent or means to do so, or perhaps I'm trying to figure out how to do it. The second usage is stronger. I have the desire (and probably the means) to realize the goal.
And of course this can be compared to the -u form
Mi deziru aĉeti domegon, sed mi ne deziras tion
I should want to buy a mansion (for a tax shelter, to please my spouse, or whatever), but I don't want that.
Hope that helps
RiotNrrd (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 16:33:21
awake:Erinja's useage is correct according to my understanding.Of that I have no doubt. If others had said it, I might have argued the point, but I trust that Erinja knows what she's talking about.
Looks like I have been using it incorrectly, although there is a fineness of meaning there that I think is going to continue to give me trouble.
So, is the phrase "Vi irus", as an isolated expression, grammatically incomplete? Or can it be translated as a complete sentence? What would that translation be (if any)?
mnlg (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 16:58:41
RiotNrrd:So, is the phrase "Vi irus", as an isolated expression, grammatically incomplete?Yes, as much as "You'd go." in English, I guess.
erinja (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 18:52:02
But in this case I am right
"Vi irus" means "You would go". The sentence sounds a little incomplete; the listener is expecting a word like "se", followed by a reason why you will not be going.
For example, "Vi irus se vi havus multan monon" (You would go if you had a lot of money)
In general - as a rule of thumb, this doesn't work every time - use -us when you would say "would" in English, and use -u when you would say "should" in English.
The exception is the form "devus", which pretty much means "should", all alone.
Mi devus iri = I should go.
You can argue about the difference between "Mi iru" and "Mi devus iri", since they both translate as "I should go" in English. The differences in meaning in the Esperanto version are fairly minor, I think.
Filu (Arată profil) 19 aprilie 2008, 19:12:30
erinja:You can argue about the difference between "Mi iru" and "Mi devus iri", since they both translate as "I should go" in English. The differences in meaning in the Esperanto version are fairly minor, I think.Dear Erinja,
This is funny and strange to me! I thought "Mi iru" and "Mi devas iri" were about the same (i.e. the translation of "I must go" or "I shall go no matter what!") and "Mi devus iri" was, as you mentioned, "I should go"...
I guess not...
mnlg (Arată profil) 20 aprilie 2008, 10:21:40
"Mi devas iri" expresses a very similar concept, but personally I would use it when the speaker is suffering the decision, or agreeing to it; not necessarily initiating it.
Perhaps this is clearer with a different personal pronoun. Consider "li devas iri". This is a statement that could, potentially, express regret or concern. You could add "bedaŭrinde" to it and it would rather clearly mean that there is a situation, according to which "he" has to go, and the speaker cannot do much about it. Compare to "li iru", which shows that the speaker is making the resolution, basically sending "him" off ("he's got to go", "he'd better go"). A "bedaŭrinde" here would clash.
awake (Arată profil) 20 aprilie 2008, 12:10:20
RiotNrrd:Consider the following,
So, is the phrase "Vi irus", as an isolated expression, grammatically incomplete? Or can it be translated as a complete sentence? What would that translation be (if any)?
Here's a possible example where that usage might be seen (and not seem incomplete). Imagine you were saying that you wouldn't go somwhere, like to your boss' funeral. and your friend replies (because you're nice person), "You'd go."
"Mi malamas lin, se vi mortus, mi ne irus al lia entombigo!"
"Ne, vi irus."