Til innholdet
Svare

I found his a theif

fra Alkanadi,2016 5 26

Meldinger: 20

Språk: English

bryku (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 26 21:21:51

Fenris_kcf:
Alkanadi:Mi trovis lin ŝtelisto
I didn't know that this is valid Esperanto. To be honest i still doubt it is. It seems way too idiomatic for my taste. I wouldn't understand it.
And what about that: "Mi faris lin bona knabo". It is the same kind of sentence.

Vestitor (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 26 21:39:34

bryku:
Fenris_kcf:
Alkanadi:Mi trovis lin ŝtelisto
I didn't know that this is valid Esperanto. To be honest i still doubt it is. It seems way too idiomatic for my taste. I wouldn't understand it.
And what about that: "Mi faris lin bona knabo". It is the same kind of sentence.
Is it though? The adjective makes it clearer.

erinja (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 26 21:39:42

This kind of construction would be called a "perverba priskribo" in PMEG.

sudanglo (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 27 12:09:10

'Mi trovis lin ŝtelisto' can't mean mi trovis ŝteliston because ŝtelisto is in the nominative and therefore can't be the direct object of trovi.

In 'I found the dog a bone' the translation must be mi trovis oston because the bone is the object of trovi.

Then the only question is the preposition to be used in front of la hundo, and 'por' is perfectly satisfactory. Esperanto does not permit mi trovis la hundon oston.

Fenris_kcf (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 27 12:39:29

According to PMEG it is correct, but i agree with sudanglo.

Miland (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 27 13:07:29

In this kind of expression there is an implicit esti, "to be": mi trovis lin (esti) ŝtelisto ("I found him (to be) a thief" ).

Alkanadi (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 29 07:02:30

erinja:Your sentence about the thief has omitted the word "esti"....
It isn't my sentence. This is Kellerman again. I think the sentence needs clarity like you said.

Alkanadi (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 29 07:05:07

Vestitor:The sentence should be easy to fathom because the same element 'to be' (or esti as it is here) is routinely dropped in English in everyday speech and sometimes in writing.

I found him (to be) a thief.
I found him a thief --> I found a thief for him.
I found out that he was a thief --> He is a thief.

Alkanadi (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 29 07:07:40

Fenris_kcf:
Alkanadi:Mi trovis lin ŝtelisto
I didn't know that this is valid Esperanto. To be honest i still doubt it is. It seems way too idiomatic for my taste. I wouldn't understand it.
It is from the Kellerman text.

erinja (Å vise profilen) 2016 5 29 10:26:44

Alkanadi:
erinja:Your sentence about the thief has omitted the word "esti"....
It isn't my sentence. This is Kellerman again. I think the sentence needs clarity like you said.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that if you read it as having a missing word, the meaning is clearer. The sentence has done something that is not uncommon in Esperanto, and is allowed. Hence my reference to PMEG, which even has a technical term for what was done in the sentence.

Tibake til toppen