Kial simple kaj facile, se eblas ankaŭ malsimple kaj malfacile???

Well, only a first try:

havi trinkita akvon =
esti trinkinta akvon =
trinkinti akvon =
trinkitin akvon ((!!))

mi amoritans kiun?

Z simpligis nur lernejajn regulojn kaj decidis, ke ĉio alia solviĝos 'per si mem', do tiaj problemoj, kiel aspekto de verboj restis malfacilaj.
En E-o estas nur tri tempoj, sed mankas verba aspekto. Ofte verbojn kun prefiksoj oni tradukas rusen al verbo de perfekta aspekto, sed tio estas ne oficiale.
Estas formoj 'mi estas trinkinta' kun signifo proksimume sama, kiel perfekta tempo, sed ne tute sama kaj ĝi estas tro peza, kaj do estas rare uzata.

"when i joint UEA, I had been studying esperanto for 6 months"
"kiam mi aligxis esperanto, mi jam studis esperanton dum 6 monatoj"


aux pli anglece:
"kiam mi aliĝis UEA, mi jam estintis studanta esperanton dum 6 monatoj"
jes, "studantintis…"
aux se vi lantas kompreni:
"mi estis estinta estanta studi"

Eble mi devus argumenti.

Mi prenis la frazon de la lanĉinto (kiam lanĉanta antaŭ multegaj mesaĝoj) la temfadenon.
Mi tradukis al esperanto la anglan frazon.
Mi nature rezultigis:
"Kiam mi aliĝis UEA, mi jam estintis studanta aŭ intis studanta esperanton dum 6 monatoj"

(Por la akrobatoj: ANTINTIS STUDI aŭ antintinta studo)

Mi miris la rezulton. Se oni volas traduki la pensmanieron anglan, oni devas diri tion. Bizaran tion.
-----------
Mi gratulas la lanĉinton ĉitiam kaj kiam lanĉanta, ĉar mi alte kaj alt-ar-e estimas la pasiajn diskutojn de lernu. Hura aŭ hu ra.

amigueo:estintis… studantintis...

-1

I read with astonishment the 1191 word second message of Marc's at this forum theme.
In my opinion, the useful summary is:
"HAVI MANĜITA POMON anstataŭ aŭ komplemente de ESTI MANĜINTA POMON"
(Well, he wrote "HAVI MANĜATA* POMON". And the asterisc is the key, i suppose.)

If we forget 1100 vaseline words, and concentrate in the implication of:
"HAVI MANĜ-ITA/ATA POMON anstataŭ aŭ komplemente de ESTI MANĜINTA POMON". Then...

Then…

With an inclusive attitude:

How to integrate that complementary verbal structure with the former esperanto?

Analogly: mi havas tri jarojn = mi estas tri jara

MarcDiaz:lagtendisto,

The principle of facultative precision is interesting. I suppose it was meant to make things easier, but I think in the end it would have the opposite result.

It might seem easier not having to use to plural and accusative if the context gives enough information. But then one would have to ask oneself constantly whether the context gives enough information to skip the plural and accusative. I think that is actually more difficult and quite subjective.

I think it is better to have a clear rule that should always be applied. This way, by repeating this pattern over and over again, it becomes easily ingrained in your speech and you no longer have to think consciounsly when to use the plural and accusative, for example.

Like I said before, deciding whether the context is enough or not can be subjective. It also adds one step to your choice of words, which make it complex.

1st) Does the contex give enough information? Then use the simple form.

2nd) If it does not, choose number and case.

By using always a specific rule, we skip step 1, and we go straight to step 2, which, in my opinion, makes it simpler. That's the way Esperanto works.

I agree that pragmatical easiness and theorical easiness can be very different.

The situational adaptation of speech is very important for efficient communication, and the small part of that adaptation is about your grammatical examples (number, case, verbal form), the bigger part is about the information that the listener knows, eys values, eys cognitive style, the subliminal nuances that you decide to include in your speech. And, oh, essential: your capability to selectively imitate the felling, thinking, expressing, wording manners of your listener. And "imitate" is not "adaptate"? Is it a better general communicative strategy to rigidly repeat and repeat your own communicative style? Of course, a flyer can communicate efficiently. Massive communication is not interpersonal communication.

The chinese concision of speech: "it is cold" --> "cold". Do you think that it makes chinese more difficult?
Imagine that you and your interlocutor are more intelligent about body language: then, you could "simplify" a lot your speech.
It would not be a "simpler" speech, only consciously more integrated with the body language. You would have to check the level of body language intelligence of your interlocutor. But it is the normal way of interaction.

That kind of grammatical integration of context is not so difficult, but you are right, more difficult that to say the same for all contexts. Redundance can help, but you can introduce redundance if necessary. Expressing without redundance would be a valuable possibility in normal speech.

In some points, Esperanto is more redundant than English. "mi-aj kar-aj amik-oj" = "my dear friend-s". Sometimes Esperanto can be less redundant: "Jam studis dum 6 monatoj" = "Had been already studying for 6 months".

"Mi ' kar ' amikoj" estus angla influo.
"Already studied for 6 months" estus esperanta influo.

I'm late to the conversation, but even though this is possibly a troll it is interesting for me to read through the answers.

English lacks a lot of precision in its verbal system which is present in other languages, like Finnish (so I'm told, and I don't speak it). It also doesn't seem to have a basic future tense, except in a few instances where the present is used as a stand in.

I'm sure someone will butt in and mention various minority languages of tribal societies which have even more precise systems. (Navajo, I'm told, and others) However this complexity is sadly partly what makes them hard for most non-speakers to pick up. It means a lot of them end up as objects of academic study, and are studied to death (the same people who document them do little to keep them alive, or at least the wrong things).

amigueo:

The chinese concision of speech: "it is cold" --> "cold". Do you think that it makes chinese more difficult?

From what little I know of Mandarin, the grammar seems to be fairly simplistic, but the language makes up for that simplicity with a tonal system and a complex (although beautiful) writing system. So it all balances out.

Someone once told me that the advantage of English, is that you can speak it badly and still be understood. No idea if this is the case with Esperanto, but I doubt it is with Mandarin.

Nephihaha:
From what little I know of Mandarin, the grammar seems to be fairly simplistic, but the language makes up for that simplicity with a tonal system and a complex (although beautiful) writing system. So it all balances out.

A balance. Horror vacui. I would like that a "simpler" language would be compensated by an innovative thinking style.

Complex thinking and no thinking:
2 complementary goals.

MarcDiaz:lagtendisto,
Like I said before, deciding whether the context is enough or not can be subjective. It also adds one step to your choice of words, which make it complex.
1st) Does the contex give enough information? Then use the simple form.
2nd) If it does not, choose number and case.
By using always a specific rule, we skip step 1, and we go straight to step 2, which, in my opinion, makes it simpler. That's the way Esperanto works.

The principle of facultative precision is applied automatically. It not so heavy. and the sentences are really not so heavy.