پستها: 93
زبان: English
Metsis (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 8:12:46
First a disclaimer. The rule of thumb is "Translate the ideas, not words", but that gives a lot of leeway. I am more inclined to take freedom in translating.
Now getting to the point… You have the clause
There are three ways to express that idea in Esperanto.
dum
during, i.e. there is a long period during which something happens
• Dum la ferio mi vizitis miajn geavojn : During my vacation I visited my grandparents.
en
in, i.e. an action takes place within the given time period
Sergejm gave alternatives
• en ĉi tiu semajnfino
• en la semajnfino
adverbs
The third way uses adverbs, which have a wider use in Esperanto than in English. One of such uses is to denote time:
• ĉi tiu matene/lunde/semajnfine/… which are usually shortened to ĉi-matene/lunde/semajnfine/…
Now getting to the point… You have the clause
PrimeMinisterK:where "this weekend" expresses that something takes place during that time period.
I think this weekend I will study some Esperanto.
There are three ways to express that idea in Esperanto.
dum
during, i.e. there is a long period during which something happens
• Dum la ferio mi vizitis miajn geavojn : During my vacation I visited my grandparents.
en
in, i.e. an action takes place within the given time period
Sergejm gave alternatives
• en ĉi tiu semajnfino
• en la semajnfino
adverbs
The third way uses adverbs, which have a wider use in Esperanto than in English. One of such uses is to denote time:
• ĉi tiu matene/lunde/semajnfine/… which are usually shortened to ĉi-matene/lunde/semajnfine/…
Metsis (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 8:14:27
Both ĉesi and fini denote a more punctual action than a long-lasting one, to cease resp. finish to exist. My reading of the sentence
PrimeMinisterK:is that that I avoid or need not to do something during the given period of time. For that reason I prefer verbs like eviti and bezoni. (Nornen is right, put them in the future tense.)
I'm very glad to be done with work for a couple of days.
Metsis (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 8:16:30
There is a whole chapter about por in PIV with plenty of examples. If you take a look at them, I bet, you do not use "for" in all cases.
The verb danki can take both por and pro. I must confess that it is not quite clear to me when to use which or whether there is any practical difference at all. IIUC, pro shows the motive, why you are thanking: Mi dankas vin pro tio, kion vi faris. Por is supposed to refer an exchange (which can be very figurative): Mi dankas vin por la prunto.
The verb danki can take both por and pro. I must confess that it is not quite clear to me when to use which or whether there is any practical difference at all. IIUC, pro shows the motive, why you are thanking: Mi dankas vin pro tio, kion vi faris. Por is supposed to refer an exchange (which can be very figurative): Mi dankas vin por la prunto.
Metsis (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 8:21:27
There is a rule that you cannot put two or more nouns directly after each other. While both tio and tiu denote demonstrative that, the former is used independently (Tio estas mia aŭto : That is my car) and the latter as as attribute (Tiu aŭto estas mia : That car is mine).
Note, that the correlatives ending in -u (ĉiu, iu, kiu, tiu and neniu) can also be used independently but are then supposed to refer to a person.
Note, that the correlatives ending in -u (ĉiu, iu, kiu, tiu and neniu) can also be used independently but are then supposed to refer to a person.
- Kiu venis? : Who came?
- Mi vidis pentriston. *Tiu pentris modelon.*
- La pentristo pentris modelon. Li estis nuda. : the painter was nude
- La pentristo pentris modelon. Tiu estis nuda. : the model was nude
Metsis (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 9:05:26
PrimeMinisterK:Nu, mi ne traspektis(1) la filmon The Suicide Squad(2). Mi spektis (nur) ĉirkau duonon (de ĝi)/ĝis (ĉirkau) la duono(3) kaj paŭzis ĝin. Kontraste(4) mi traspektis(5) la filmon The Outlaw Josey Wales kun Clint Eastwood. Tio(6) estas bonega filmo kaj Clint vere(7) estas legenda(8).
Well, I did not finish watching The Suicide Squad. I watched about half of it and paused it. However, I did watch The Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood. That is a great movie and Clint is truly a legend.
1. To watch something (movie, play…) to the finish is traspekti ← tra + spekti. Note, that "watching" here is not a gerund (spekt_nt/) but a deverbal noun, which would be spektado in Esperanto.
2. To make easier to denote accusative use a descriptive text before the proper name. This has an additional advantage to make clear whar the proper name refers to.
3. I would add nur, but that is a matter of taste. I think you can omit de ĝi. Also a matter of taste, but if I were to tell this to someone, I probably would use ĝis la duono, up to the halfway. Furthermore I think nobody assumes that I mean exact halfway, so no need for ĉirkaŭ.
4. This is a tricky one. While English dictionaries give "however" for tamen, its use requires that you have somehow defined the "assumption" as tamen stands for that. In other words tamen cannot be used to introduce an exception.
- Seninfana estis la edzeco de la rabeno, tamen ĉirkaŭ li ne mankis vivado kaj moviĝado : The marriage of the rabbi was childless, however/nevertheless there was life and movement around him.
In your sentence you introduce a contrast, you could say in English "In contrast I did watch…", so kontraste.
5. Here I would emphasise that I watched the whole Josey Wales film, thus traspektis.
6. See tio vs. tiu in my earlier comment.
7. If an adverb gets associated with a verb, as they usually do in Esperanto, the usual place is right before the verb.
8. While I understand the use of a noun in English, and a noun would also be fine in my native language, I hesitate to use it this way in Esperanto. PIV gives for legendo only the meaning of a story. Here we are attaching a feature to a person, so I think an adjective suits better. PIV has examples legenda figruo, heroo.
sergejm (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 12:35:05
Ĉi tiu semajne is not possible.
Dum ĉi tiu semajno - with noun. In order to get adverb you must make one word => ĉi-semajne; only adverb can be joined to adverb (so frue matene is possible, but frumatene is preferable
Dum ĉi tiu semajno - with noun. In order to get adverb you must make one word => ĉi-semajne; only adverb can be joined to adverb (so frue matene is possible, but frumatene is preferable
RiotNrrd (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 13:04:20
I guess I still don't have it figured out when to use tiu and when to use tio.
I tend to do the following.
If the item being referred to...
1) ... is known to be a person, whether identified or not, use tiu, always. Tiu homo estas bona OR tiu (homo - unspoken) estas bona.
2) ... is identified in that sentence, use tiu. Tiu kato estas bona.
3) ... is not identified in that sentence, use tio. Tio estas bona.
4) ... is not identified in that sentence, but has been identified in an earlier sentence, you may use either, because one could make the case that the item is either not being identified in that sentence (tio), or is considered identified by the earlier sentence but elided in this one (tiu). Tiu (kato - unspoken) estas bona, OR tio estas bona.
Never put tio in front of an identifying noun, even an elided one, since that would put two -o words in a row, which is not allowed.
I tend to do the following.
If the item being referred to...
1) ... is known to be a person, whether identified or not, use tiu, always. Tiu homo estas bona OR tiu (homo - unspoken) estas bona.
2) ... is identified in that sentence, use tiu. Tiu kato estas bona.
3) ... is not identified in that sentence, use tio. Tio estas bona.
4) ... is not identified in that sentence, but has been identified in an earlier sentence, you may use either, because one could make the case that the item is either not being identified in that sentence (tio), or is considered identified by the earlier sentence but elided in this one (tiu). Tiu (kato - unspoken) estas bona, OR tio estas bona.
Never put tio in front of an identifying noun, even an elided one, since that would put two -o words in a row, which is not allowed.
nornen (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 15:38:23
PrimeMinisterK:Okay, let's go for another entry here:Good morning, First Minister of K. I will do the same as last time.
Well, I did not finish watching The Suicide Squad. I watched about half of it and paused it. However, I did watch The Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood. That is a great movie and Clint is truly a legend.
Nu, mi ne finspektis The Suicide Squad-on. Mi spektis ĉirkau duonon de ĝi kaj paŭzigis ĝin. Tamen, mi spektis The Outlaw Josey Wales-on, kun Clint Eastwood. Tiu estas bonega filmo kaj vere Clint estas legendo.
Nu, mi ne spektis The Suicide Squad tuta*. Mi spektis pli malpli la duonon kaj poste mi haltigis ĝin. Tamen mi ja spektis The Outlaw Josey Wales, en kiu rolas Clint Eastwood. Tiu filmo estas bonega kaj Clint vere estas legendulo.
(*) Why no accusative? Because it is a predicate noun over the object, and those are never marked for accusative. Compare: Mi pentris ŝin nuda.
- - - -
About tiu and tio.
Maybe the easiest rule of thumb is this one (tiu): Tio stands for "that thing" or "that fact". In all other cases use "tiu":
Tio estas mia domo. = That thing is my house.
Mi volas tion. = I want that thing.
La vetero estas bela. Tio min ĝojigas. = The weather is fine. That fact makes me glad.
But if it stands for "that one (and not the other)", then it is tiu:
Mi volas tiun kaj ne la alian. = I want that one and not the other.
Tiu estas mia domo. = That one (and not the other) is my house. Maybe better: Tiu domo estas mia.
Ĉu vi vidas tiujn tri homojn? Tiu (pointing with the finger at one of them) batis min. = Do you see those three men? That one hit me (not the others).
RiotNrrd (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 16:44:48
Yes, Nornen pointed out something I left out, that tiu refers to a specific thing out of an array of things, while tio is more general.
The problem with tio and tiu is that they mean things that are similar, and that conceptually overlap to some degree. You can often see them in what appear to be arbitrary locations, where it seems that either would work, and it isn't always clear why one was chosen over the other. The "that (thing in general)" versus "that (specific one)" distinction is useful to keep in mind.
The difference between "Tio estas mia domo" and "Tiu estas mia domo" can be very subtle to beginners. As Nornen explained better than I did, the first identifies what the building is (their house), and the second explains which building is theirs.
The problem with tio and tiu is that they mean things that are similar, and that conceptually overlap to some degree. You can often see them in what appear to be arbitrary locations, where it seems that either would work, and it isn't always clear why one was chosen over the other. The "that (thing in general)" versus "that (specific one)" distinction is useful to keep in mind.
The difference between "Tio estas mia domo" and "Tiu estas mia domo" can be very subtle to beginners. As Nornen explained better than I did, the first identifies what the building is (their house), and the second explains which building is theirs.
RiotNrrd (نمایش مشخصات) 9 اوت 2021، 17:12:58
I'm trying to think of an easy way to express this so it can be remembered. Because the difference between tio and tiu is a common source of confusion amongst beginners, and even amongst more experienced speakers, because the difference at times can be subtle.
I wonder if this might be a clearer way to think about it: Tio always answers kio, and tiu always answers kiu.
So tio is the answer to "what?" and tiu is the answer to "which or who?" Tiu is used for people exclusively for the same reason we don't use ĝi for people: in Esperanto people aren't objects, and kio\tio are about objects.
I don't know if that does express it better, or even fully accurately. But it seems to capture the sense in a short rule that I can't think of any counterexamples to. Others can refute, if need be. I have always found this distinction difficult to communicate because English tends to translate both tio and tiu simply as "that", which my rule is trying to avoid doing.
I wonder if this might be a clearer way to think about it: Tio always answers kio, and tiu always answers kiu.
So tio is the answer to "what?" and tiu is the answer to "which or who?" Tiu is used for people exclusively for the same reason we don't use ĝi for people: in Esperanto people aren't objects, and kio\tio are about objects.
I don't know if that does express it better, or even fully accurately. But it seems to capture the sense in a short rule that I can't think of any counterexamples to. Others can refute, if need be. I have always found this distinction difficult to communicate because English tends to translate both tio and tiu simply as "that", which my rule is trying to avoid doing.