Al la enhavo
Respondi

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

de LiamBeaman, 2016-majo-21

Mesaĝoj: 52

Lingvo: English

vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 02:48:19

Alkanadi:
vejktoro:Does anyone know of any Esperanto verbs other than 'devas' where this occurs?
I think povi would work like that.

Mi ne povas fari tion
Mi povas ne fari tion
Hmm, I think I see what's going on. To English speakers, your second example would be English, " I can NOT do that."

This is a different 'not' than the modal construct I was on about earlier. This 'not' isolates only the main verb and the overall sentence can retain it's positiveness if you will. You have to change the stress pattern of the sentence to make it work, stressing the word not - saying it a little slower even.

And it can live with the other 'not', as in, "I can't NOT do it." - " I can not NOT do that."

So...
Can I say, "Mi ne povas ne fari tion." - ?

Do I need the same stress pattern as English on the second 'not'? - "Ni ne povas NE fari tion."

Does this Esperanto word order anomaly maybe come from English speakers?... would it be as obvious to a L1 Japanese speaker?

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 03:57:06

vejktoro:
Can I say, "Mi ne povas ne fari tion." - ?

Do I need the same stress pattern as English on the second 'not'? - "Ni ne povas NE fari tion."

Does this Esperanto word order anomaly maybe come from English speakers?... would it be as obvious to a L1 Japanese speaker?
You can say that. You don't have to do the special stress pattern, in my opinion, though you certainly could put in that pattern if you want.

nornen (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 06:55:40

vejktoro:So...
Can I say, "Mi ne povas ne fari tion." - ?
You surely can, however it found be counterfundamental and hence not Esperanto at all. The Fundamenta Gramatiko states quite clearly:

Zamenhof (FG):12. If there be one negative in a clause, a second is not admissible.
Hence "*Mi ne povas ne fari tion" is not admissible.

vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 07:15:13

nornen:
vejktoro:So...
Can I say, "Mi ne povas ne fari tion." - ?
You surely can, however it found be counterfundamental and hence not Esperanto at all. The Fundamenta Gramatiko states quite clearly:

Zamenhof (FG):12. If there be one negative in a clause, a second is not admissible.
Hence "*Mi ne povas ne fari tion" is not admissible.
Do, vere gxi povas esti anglismo.

vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 07:17:44

oops.

In English this time: So it very well may be an Anglicism.

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 14:01:28

nornen:
vejktoro:So...
Can I say, "Mi ne povas ne fari tion." - ?
You surely can, however it found be counterfundamental and hence not Esperanto at all. The Fundamenta Gramatiko states quite clearly:

Zamenhof (FG):12. If there be one negative in a clause, a second is not admissible.
Hence "*Mi ne povas ne fari tion" is not admissible.
No, "mi ne povas ne fari tion" is fine, we are negating two different verbs.

Zamenhof's example in his advice was "Mi neniam vidis". I have met speakers who, due to influence from their native languages, want to say *"Mi ne vidis neniam", which is what Zamenhof was referring to with the kind of double negatives that are impermissible. You are certainly allowed to have two negatives that are negating two different things, you just can't negate the same thing twice.

Therefore, a sentence like "Oni ne povas ne ridi!" (One can't not laugh) is perfectly good.

See more discussion in PMEG: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/neado.html#i-87...

lagtendisto (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-24 15:33:44

That reminds me to: 'Man kann nicht, nicht kommunizieren' / 'Oni ne povas, ne komuniki'. It means that its not possible to suppress completely to communicate in gesture, facial expression, voice tonus etc. In spoken German I pause after the comma.

Kladdkaka (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-28 23:34:21

Regarding "mustn't", I didn't se anyone mention maldevas, which I believe is a good translation of mustn't.

Am I correct or wrong?

Vestitor (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-28 23:44:10

Does the negation have to be on devas at all? Can't it be in the form of:

Mi devas ne fari tion
Mi devas ne pensi tion
Mi devas ne vidi tion

etc..?

Even though mustn't is written as a unit it is really the second verb which is being negated, the modal verb must is really the same in either case..

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2016-junio-29 01:36:24

Kladdkaka:Regarding "mustn't", I didn't se anyone mention maldevas, which I believe is a good translation of mustn't.

Am I correct or wrong?
No, devi means to be required to. "maldevi" would mean the opposite of being required, which I guess would refer to a concept of complete free will?

mustn't means must not, so that would be "devas ne [verb]", it's still a must but the negative is applied to the next verb, not to "must".

Reen al la supro