1. The ending -end- is almost exclusively used in adjective form -enda. It's actual use is quite rare

another example of people not using the resursoj.

A quick couple of searches in Tekstaro show that in recent texts the suffix is quite common, and the verbal form certainly occurs frequently. Try entering verb-enda - which will show adjectival and verbal hits.

Kelkaj trafoj:

... ke ne estas tiel. La kaŭzoj serĉendas aliloke.
Mi montros al vi, kio farendas
Menciendas ankaŭ ke ...
La problemoj, kiujn ...., estas aparte studendaj

Today's random question is a grammatical question.

I ran into this sentence today and the construction of the sentence seemed very strange. Here it is:

Korina Klodt loĝas ĉi tie en la printempo de 1938, kiam ŝin meze de la nokto vekas fremdaj viroj en malhelaj vestoj, kiuj forportas ŝiajn gepatrojn.

The italics is where I'm getting confused. Can someone give me the meaning and tell if it's really a weird sentence or if I'm just not advanced enough to fully understand it?

I am confised only by why Present is used instead of Past.
It is the spring of 1938.
Korina Klodt is awakened in the middle of the night by unknown men in dark clothes who take her parents away.

sergejm:I am confised only by why Present is used instead of Past.
It is the spring of 1938.
Korina Klodt is awakened in the middle of the night by unknown men in dark clothes who take her parents away.

I think the use of present tense is acting as a literary device here, to make the past feel like it is alive and happening right now. But I also was a little confused by that.

Here's what confuses me:

When translating I got, ". . . when she awakes in the middle of the night men in drab clothing. . ." So, while I can rationally infer that the sentence is saying the men woke her, I'm not actually seeing the required wording in the sentence to indicate that the men are the ones who caused her to wake up. It's like it's missing some words.

hela = light (adj.)
malhela = dark (adj.)
I used is the translation Passive instead of Active. In order to use Active I should change word order.
Unknown men in dark clothes awake her in the middle of the night. They take her parents away.

sergejm:hela = light (adj.)
malhela = dark (adj.)
I used is the translation Passive instead of Active. In order to use Active I should change word order.
Unknown men in dark clothes awake her in the middle of the night. They take her parents away.

Okay, I see. When I ran "malhela" through a dictionary I got a whole list of stuff and wasn't sure exactly what to go for:

bleak, dark, dim, dismal, dreary, dull, dusky, lurid, murky, obscure, somber

Maybe it's the word order here that is confusing me. Also, I guess I'm reading "ŝin vekas" as "she awakes" and not as "she is awakened by."

malhela stelo, malhela vesto etc. - "malhela" is translated in different way.

Maybe it's the word order here that is confusing me. Also, I guess I'm reading "ŝin vekas" as "she awakes" and not as "she is awakened by."

Yes - you're having the same difficulty that you had with 'sekvis semajno'.

Whilst the order in Esperanto (in simple sentences) is overwhelmingly SVO (subject verb object), other orders are possible because Esperanto use explicit marking of grammatical function.

You haven't yet got used to identifying the object in a sentence by its case. The object in your quoted sentence is ŝin, the subject fremdaj viroj.

You generally can't mess around with the order in English, because English relies on order to tell you subject and object.

This can also happen in Esperanto when it is clumsy to mark the object.

So in Esperanto PrimeMinisterK amis Zamenhof and Zamenhof amis PrimeMinisterK relies on order just as in English.

BUT lin amas mi tutkore and mi tutkore amas lin and mi lin tutkore amas all mean the same (at least with regard to who loves who).

Ĉu tion vi fine komprenas? (OSV)

Note, the deviation from standard SVO is not only useful for stylistic reasons (elegance, emphasis, poetry, songs etc). It also means that learners whose native tongues are not SVO, will nevertheless be understood if they lapse into the order which is more familiar to them from their denaska lingvo,

See this Wikipedia article about word order in the world's languages.

Parenteze, estus pli bone se vi lanĉus ĉiun apartan demandon aparte, anstataŭ kunigi ilin ĉiujn sub unu titolo.

Posta Skribo:

Test - what's wrong with the following sentence?

La libron elangligis D-ron Zamenhof

sudanglo:Yes - you're having the same difficulty that you had with 'sekvis semajno'.

Whilst the order in Esperanto (in simple sentences) is overwhelmingly SVO (subject verb object), other orders are possible because Esperanto use explicit marking of grammatical function.

You haven't yet got used to identifying the object in a sentence by its case. The object in your quoted sentence is ŝin, the subject fremdaj viroj.

You generally can't mess around with the order in English, because English relies on order to tell you subject and object.

This can also happen in Esperanto when it is clumsy to mark the object.

So in Esperanto PrimeMinisterK amis Zamenhof and Zamenhof amis PrimeMinisterK relies on order just as in English.

BUT lin amas mi tutkore and mi tutkore amas lin and mi lin tutkore amas all mean the same (at least with regard to who loves who).

Ĉu tion vi fine komprenas? (OSV)

Note, the deviation from standard SVO is not only useful for stylistic reasons (elegance, emphasis, poetry, songs etc). It also means that learners whose native tongues are not SVO, will nevertheless be understood if they lapse into the order which is more familiar to them from their denaska lingvo,

See this Wikipedia article about word order in the world's languages.

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation.

Yeah, that does give me trouble. Sometimes sentences in Esperanto do seem chaotic and jumbled beyond recognition as a coherent thought, and I think the word order definitely tripped me up here.

I think there may be more to it though, in this case. I think this verb veki I don't totally get. I first took its meaning as "to awaken" or "to wake up," in the sense that one might say, "I woke up and then I made some coffee." As in, your own internal mechanisms woke you up, rather than some outside force. So to be clear, I'm not saying that I read it as she woke the men up but rather as she herself awoke in the middle of the night . . . and then this random thought attached about men in dark clothing.

But clearly in this case, I can tell now that the verb is saying the men woke her up.

Would the same verb be used to in both cases: when someone wakes up naturally, or someone is awoken by an outside force? As in, would you use veki to say, "I woke up and made coffee?"

sudanglo:Parenteze, estus pli bone se vi lanĉus ĉiun apartan demandon aparte, anstataŭ kunigi ilin ĉiujn sub unu titolo.

You mean, make a new thread for each question?

I was doing that at first but I started to feel like my threads were dominating this entire subforum. And if you notice in the OP of this thread I had seven different questions and thought it would probably be bad form to create seven new threads for each question, like I'm taking the place over. I also foresaw many days hence where I might have several questions to ask, and decided it was probably better to just create one thread for all my random inquiries.

Speaking of this forum, as I mentioned in my first response to you a few days ago, I dropped by this forum several years ago (circa 2012 I'd say) when I was first investigating Esperanto and there seemed to be a LOT more traffic. This seemed like THE hub of the Esperanto community, as far I could tell. Is it just my imagination or is the traffic now just a fraction of what it used to be?

sudanglo:
Posta Skribo:

Test - what's wrong with the following sentence?

La libron elangligis D-ron Zamenhof

Not quite sure because I can't find elangligi in any dictionary.

Define that and maybe I can tell you.

EDIT: Okay, thanks for Altebrilas I understand that "elangligis" means "translated from English," is that right?

So then the problem is the -n on Doktoro. Zamenhof translated the book, the book didn't translate Zamenhof.