Aller au contenu
Répondre

translation questions

de mfar, 9 mai 2016

Messages : 94

Langue: English

Alkanadi (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 14:12:11

Kirilo81:1. Yes, ĉe points to a close location with or without contact (pace PMEG).
Yay!
2. This does however not corroborate your point.
Darn!
I have already clarified that the location is not simple vi, but ĉe vi - the whole phrase is a location.
Since ĉe points to a location, which word in this sentence is the location?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
no one of the people claiming that mi iras vin is possible and means mi iras al vi could show any such sentence in the Fundamento, the work of Zamenhof or other good authors.
This sentence structure does not exist, which I have illustrated in my previous post.

erinja (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 14:32:54

Alkanadi:
erinja:...but in actual Esperanto as it is spoken, your interpretation is simply incorrect.
I don't have any speaking experience. Perhaps the spoken version is different than the written version from a hundred years ago.

I think that the spoken version includes conventions, which people assume to be rules.
I think you have very limited experience with either the spoken or written version of the language (which hardly differ) and you are pointedly ignoring the good advice that experienced speakers are trying to give you, in favor of baseless theories that have no support in the history of Esperanto usage, past or present. I ask myself, why are you insisting on this point, even to the point of presenting it as fact on a learning website where beginners can be misled by it?

Alkanadi (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 14:56:27

erinja:you are pointedly ignoring the good advice that experienced speakers
I looked up the definition of the word ignore. Am I ignoring experienced speakers? Can we stay on the point instead of getting sidetracked?
beginners can be misled by it?
I hope they don't get misled.

erinja (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 16:20:35

Ignoring the advice of experienced speakers. Three cheers for selective reading.

lagtendisto (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 20:43:07

I can only assume if it meet current situation of interculture communication. In some countries to accuse somebody the way 'to ignore somebody' thats kind of accuse 'to be arrogant' what further could be understood like middle strong offense in culture which doesn't have 'matured fighter' culture of individualism. (Lessons I learnt at work and abroad.)

Vestitor (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 21:02:49

I don't know what the above means. I think it deserves an Esperanto version.

dbob (Voir le profil) 16 mai 2016 21:57:56

Alkanadi:Since ĉe points to a location, which word in this sentence is the location?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
In that particular example "ĉe" points to a location which is not explicitly expresed in that sentence. Obviously "vi(n)" is not a place. Based on my limited knowledge I'm pretty sure that "ĉe vin" points to the location where you are, but it's not pointing to you.

Consider the following example from PMEG:
Kiam li estis ĉe mi, li staris tutan horon apud la fenestro. (FE.26)

According to PMEG, in the above sentence "ĉe mi" means "at my place", "at my home". Yet, you can't find a word in that sentence that explicitly represents the idea of a location.

One of the definitions for "ĉe" in PIV is "en la domo de":
Li iris ĉe la dentiston. == Li iris en la domon de la dentisto.
Venu ĉe mian malsanan patrinon. == Venu en la domon de mia malsana patrino.

Alkanadi, I really hope that you understand this concept.

Alkanadi (Voir le profil) 17 mai 2016 06:15:50

dbob:In that particular example "ĉe" points to a location which is not explicitly expresed in that sentence. Obviously "vi(n)" is not a place. Based on my limited knowledge I'm pretty sure that "ĉe vin" points to the location where you are, but it's not pointing to you.
You are suggesting that a preposition is required to turn the personal pronoun into a location. Instead of saying I go to you, it should be I go to where you are. We have the same construct in English. In fact, I will go to my father is grammatically incorrect in English. This is a mistake that ESL people make all the time. There must be an infinitive verb to give it meaning. However, Esperanto is supposed to be consistent and regular. I hold it to a higher standard. There is an inconsistency somewhere.

1, Why are these not equivalent?
Mi iras vin = Mi iras al vi

2, What is the different between these two sentences?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi

3, Why are these sentences acceptable since there is no preposition?
...mi iris Rusujon por ekvidi...
...mi iris sudflankon de la insulo...
Sed plaĉas al Li tiuj, kiuj iras vojon pian.

4, If people cannot be a position or direction (without a preposition to mark the x and y coordinates), then what about animals, ghosts, clouds, smoke, lightning, germs, ect..?

Alkanadi (Voir le profil) 17 mai 2016 06:17:53

erinja:Ignoring the advice of experienced speakers. Three cheers for selective reading.
What is the difference between ignoring someone and ignoring someone's advice? Is this a war of semantics or are you trying to be helpful?

Miland (Voir le profil) 17 mai 2016 08:58:01

In Esperanto the phrase ĉe followed by a pronoun means a place, belonging to the person indicated by the pronoun. Thus ĉe mi means, "at my place", and Li estos ĉe mi means "He will be at my place." Mi iros ĉe vin has the accusative of direction and means "I will go to your place." Mi iros ĉe vi would be wrong, because it would not have al before a place, whereas Mi iros al ĉe vi would be correct. The reason why PMEG 12.2.5 doesn't apply here is that it is used only for names sending in -o.

Retour au début