Сообщений: 36
Язык: English
bartlett22183 (Показать профиль) 7 февраля 2016 г., 20:13:21
Jonatano:I think I understand how this works, but I want to confirm this. Please correct anything in the following if I make a mistake.I won't try to critique all the various forms you wrote. It is just that so very frequently, it is not needful to make such fine distinctions as English does with its progressive and passive -- among other things! -- verb forms, so that it is not needful to try to map all of them into Esperanto on a word for word or form for form basis. Often a rephrasing with simple forms will accomplish the same meaning. It is a matter of skill with the language. I am not a professional linguist, and I will cheerfully accept correction, but to the best of my understanding, the English verb system is somewhat atypical among the world's languages, so it is just not necessary to try to map it precisely into Esperanto.
{...trim...}
Thanks!
nornen (Показать профиль) 8 февраля 2016 г., 15:29:12
bartlett22183:It is just that so very frequently, it is not needful to make such fine distinctions as English does with its progressive and passive -- among other things! -- verb forms, so that it is not needful to try to map all of them into Esperanto on a word for word or form for form basis.I concur and I daresay that it is impossible to create a 1-on-1 mapping between English verb forms and Esperanto verb forms. As you already mentioned, English has a progressive aktionsart, Esperanto hasn't. More importantly maybe: English has a perfect(ive) aktionart and Esperanto hasn't that one either.
I think that compiling such a 1-on-1 mapping like it has been done in this thread is even misleading for new learners, if one leaves this mapping without further comment.
Li rigardis. = He watched.A beginner might, incorrectly, infer from this listing, that an English present perfect has to be translated as estas X'inta, while a past progressive has to be translated as estis X'anta. And this simply is not true. One might also infer, incorrectly again, that a plain past in Esperanto can never represent a present perfect. However, this is the case quite often.
Li estas rigardinta. = He has watched.
Li estis rigardanta. = He was watching.
erinja (Показать профиль) 8 февраля 2016 г., 17:57:49
nornen (Показать профиль) 8 февраля 2016 г., 18:20:48
erinja:What is an aktionart?aktionsart
Or more detailed.
"Lexical" is a bit misleading because in Esperanto if any it is lexical but in English morphological or paraphrastic.
Maybe calling it fully-fledged aspects would have been a better choice of word.
erinja (Показать профиль) 8 февраля 2016 г., 18:29:59
nornen:erinja:What is an aktionart?aktionsart
FYI you spelled it both ways in your original post, so I was not sure which was the correct word
nornen (Показать профиль) 8 февраля 2016 г., 18:42:28
erinja:My bad. I misspelled it. It has indeed a Fugen-s in the middle.nornen:erinja:What is an aktionart?aktionsart
FYI you spelled it both ways in your original post, so I was not sure which was the correct word