Al la enhavo
Respondi

How would one say "don't have to" in Esperanto?

de LiamBeaman, 2016-majo-21

Mesaĝoj: 52

Lingvo: English

dbob (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-23 15:58:13

Alkanadi:I think the relative pronoun is required to change the meaning.
I still don't see how the relative pronoun has anything to do with this.
What Kellerman is talking about is that in Esperanto, instead of saying:
*Mi vidis la libron vi havas*, you must say: "Mi vidis la libron, kiun vi havas".
And she is right.

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-23 17:28:59

Alkanadi:
dbob:[...] ne vi sendis min ĉi tien, sed Dio (Zamenhof)
Ne mi diras tion, sed la realeco mem (Lydia Zamenhof)
ne vi sendis min = vi ne sendis min
Ne mi diras tion = Mi ne diras tion

I think the relative pronoun is required to change the meaning.

Maybe Kellerman isn't the best source.
You were perhaps confused by my wordy English translation of my Esperanto original. However, I could have translated it as "Not I saw that". It just doesn't come out as good English, which is why I used a wordy English translation, to make the meaning clear. And yes, it is possible to say "Mi ne estas tiu kiu diris tion", but no, this is not the only way to get this point across in Esperanto, and sentences like this are wonderful examples of how you can use Esperanto's flexible word order to change the emphasis, add nuance, and say things in a more succinct and elegant way. It's much like how you can say "La verkon tradukis Zamenhof" rather than "La verko estas tradukita de Zamenhof".

There is nothing wrong with "Ne mi vidis tion". A more appropriate response would be "Wow, I didn't know you could do that", rather than "Here's an example from an old textbook that I am going to carefully read as refuting your point, even though it actually has nothing to do with the subject at hand" (which is use of word order to modify the focus and direction of a verb).

If you look at tekstaro.com, you will find abundant examples of what I'm talking about.

Here are a few:
from Quo Vadis:
Ne mi vin perfidos, sed gardu vin kontraŭ la vigiloj (it's not me who will betray you, but the vigiloj)
Ne mi aranĝas la cirkoludojn, sed Tigellinus. (it's not me who arranges the circus games, but Tigellinus)

from the Master and the Margarita:
Aĥ, kia domaĝo, ke ne mi sed vi lin renkontis! (Ah, what a shame, that not I, but you met him!)

Alkanadi (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 06:35:37

erinja:There is nothing wrong with "Ne mi vidis tion".
I agree. There is nothing wrong with that sentence. Did anyone say that it was wrong?
"Here's an example from an old textbook that I am going to carefully read as refuting your point..
Weren't you the one who recommended this old textbook? I am half way through it. Do you still endorse reading it or is it too old? Should I even finish it?

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 12:27:14

You said that "Ne mi vidis tion" is equivalent to "Mi ne vidis tion" and that's not correct.

I am telling you it is not correct, you are reading things into Kellerman's text that simply aren't there (or are totally irrelevant to this discussion), and unfortunately Kellerman is dead so she can't tell you otherwise.

Kellerman's text is fine for learning, it's correct. But then again, any correct text can also have its comments and explanations taken out of context and used to make misleading pronouncements that are not correct.

Alkanadi (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 13:49:28

erinja:Kellerman's text is fine for learning, it's correct.
Why did you imply that it isn't reliable by stating that it was old?

Vestitor (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 15:51:27

Well, it is indeed old, but where did Erinja write that or imply it is unreliable?

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 16:12:15

Who says old means unreliable?

In this case, old is pertinent because the author is long dead. It's not like you can ask the author what they meant in case there's a question of interpretation, as you could with a modern textbook whose author is still alive.

Like I said in the exact same post - it's rather convenient to cherry pick misleading examples from that book, and Kellerman is dead so she can't tell you that you've misread it.

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 16:20:58

Alkanadi:ne vi sendis min = vi ne sendis min
Ne mi diras tion = Mi ne diras tion

I think the relative pronoun is required to change the meaning.
It's already been pointed out (as well as proven using examples from literature) that this is wrong, but I will simply reaffirm what's been said already. "Mi ne diris" and "Ne mi diris" are NOT the same, and your apparent belief that Kellerman contradicts this is mistaken. You'd do better to just accept that and move on than to continue nitpicking pedantically.

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-24 16:29:24

At any rate - Kellerman's teachings on the relative pronoun, which are correct as regards Esperanto, have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of "ne devas X-i" versus "devas ne X-i", which has everything to do with word order and nothing to do with relative pronouns. Relative pronouns only come into it in ENGLISH grammar, if you are trying to translate the Esperanto sentence into English. As you surely know, one language may require relative pronouns to get a thought across, in cases when another language does not.

If you want Kellerman's opinion on this particular topic (ne devas vs devas ne), you'd have to see what she says about word order - which I think is almost nothing, because it's beyond the scope of her work, which doesn't go that deep into grammar.

However, Bertilo's PMEG deals with word order, and states that "ne" stands before the thing that it negates.

Alkanadi (Montri la profilon) 2016-majo-25 08:13:35

erinja:However, Bertilo's PMEG deals with word order, and states that "ne" stands before the thing that it negates.
Thanks for the links.

Reen al la supro