Good evening, PrimeMinisterK. Welcome back. It is a pleasure to see you again around here.

Let me pick your translation apart.

Neniam diru pri io, "Mi perdas ĝin," sed diru, "Mi redonis ĝin."
Obviously "perdis" in past tense.

Ĉu via infano mortis?" Ĝi estis redonita.
Blimey, compound tenses. In my opinion, those tenses are easier to grasp if you add a noun to the participle. "Ĝi estis redonita infano." This means: It was (estis) a child, who had been given back. You see, past perfect. As the act of giving it back isn't of much importance, but the fact that it has been given back now, I would word it as: Ĝi estas redonita. It has been given back. Or even a lot more simply: Mi redonis ĝin.
For the right choice of tense in Esperanto, it would be helpful to see the Greek original and whether the author used perfect or aorist.

Ĉu via edzino mortis? Ŝi estis redonita.
Exactly the same thing. Ŝi estas redonita. Or: Mi redonis ŝin.

Ĉu via bieno estis forprenita?
Ĉu via bieno estas forprenita? Or: Ĉu oni forprenis vian bienon?

Ĉu estas vera, ke ĝi ankaŭ estis redonita, ne?
"Vera" must be "vere", because the subject is an subordinate clause. I would say: Vere ankaŭ ĝi estas redonita, ĉu?

Sed vi diras, "Li, kiu forprenis ĝin el mi estas malvirta."
Missing comma after the relative clause. And I would use "de" instead of "el".

Ĉu gravas la persono, kiu la Donulo elektis esti la ilo de ĝia reveno?
Ĉu gravas la persono, kiun la Donanto elektis kiel (la) ilon de ĝia redono.
In my words:
Kial gravu, per kiu la Donanto ĝin repetis?

Se Li donas ĝin al vi, vartu ĝin, sed ne kiel aĵo, kio vi posedas.
Se Li donas ĝin al vi, vartu ĝin, sed ne kiel aĵon, kiun vi posedas.
Nice choice of varti.
Se Li donas ĝin al vi, vartu ĝin, sed ne kiel vian.

Alternative, traktu ĝin, kiel vojaĝantoj traktas tavernon.
I would omit completely the "alternative":

Found the original:

ιαʹ

Μηδέποτε ἐπὶ μηδενὸς εἴπῃς ὅτι «ἀπώλεσα αὐτό», ἀλλ' ὅτι «ἀπέδωκα». τὸ παιδίον ἀπέθανεν; ἀπεδόθη. ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν; ἀπεδόθη. «τὸ χωρίον ἀφῃρέθην». οὐκοῦν καὶ τοῦτο ἀπεδόθη. «ἀλλὰ κακὸς ὁ ἀφελόμενος». τί δὲ σοὶ μέλει, διὰ τίνος σε ὁ δοὺς ἀπῄτησε; μέχρι δ' ἂν διδῷ, ὡς ἀλλοτρίου αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελοῦ, ὡς τοῦ πανδοχείου οἱ παριόντες.

Everything in aorist. So very hard to correctly render in Esperanto, as it does not have a simple past passive.
Also a lot less wordy than the English translation. Which is to be expected of a stoic.

Zam_franca:Saluton ĉefministro, jen kiel plibonigi vian tradukon laŭ mi:

Oh, thank you for the assistance!

Neniam diru pri io ajn

Why "io ajn"? I have seen "io ajn" before but not really sure what it means.

Ĉu gravas la persono, kiun la Doninto elektis esti la ilo de ĝia revenigo?

Well since you point out the accusative on kiu, do we not need an -n on persono as well?

"Doninto" signifas "tiu, kiu donis" (the one who gave), ne "tiu, kiu donas" (the one who gives). Mi ne scias, kion precize celas la aŭtoro, do eble "Donanto" pli taŭgus.

Is Doninto simply your preference, or does Donulo not work at all?

- "Se" funkcias, sed mi persone ne vidas kialojn por ne traduki pli precize ("tiom longe kiom...").

I don't understand this. What does "tiom longe kiom" mean?

nornen:Good evening, PrimeMinisterK. Welcome back. It is a pleasure to see you again around here.

Oh, well thank you! I'm glad to be back.

Let me pick your translation apart.

I would expect nothing less. I hope one day we'll reach the point where you can look at my work and feel you have nothing to correct.

Blimey, compound tenses.

I've seen this reaction before and I don't understand it. Their use seems perfectly natural to me and they seem like a valuable tool for communicating and translating.

In my opinion, those tenses are easier to grasp if you add a noun to the participle. "Ĝi estis redonita infano." This means: It was (estis) a child, who had been given back. You see, past perfect.

That to me looks very strange. "It was given back a child." That's how I read that. It seems like if you're going to put infano in there you have to drop the ĝi.

As the act of giving it back isn't of much importance, but the fact that it has been given back now, I would word it as: Ĝi estas redonita. It has been given back.

So to be clear, so that I understand, my translation wasn't wrong, correct? "Ĝi estis redonita" is a viable and grammatically correct way to say "It was given back"?

Or even a lot more simply: Mi redonis ĝin.

I would feel a lot better about this choice if the line was in quotes in the original passage but it is not.

Ĉu gravas la persono, kiu la Donulo elektis esti la ilo de ĝia reveno?
Ĉu gravas la persono, kiun la Donanto elektis kiel (la) ilon de ĝia redono.

As I asked Zam, if kiu needs the accusative -n, wouldn't persono need it as well?

Also it seems like you two are at odds on whether it should be Donanto or Doninto.

And you seemed esti to kiel. Is that just a stylistic choice or is esti grammatically wrong?

In my words:
Kial gravu, per kiu la Donanto ĝin repetis?

I don't understand the -u on gravu. Is there a command being given?

Alternative, traktu ĝin, kiel vojaĝantoj traktas tavernon.
I would omit completely the "alternative":

I almost went with "anstataŭe." Do you like that better?

nornen:Found the original:

ιαʹ

Μηδέποτε ἐπὶ μηδενὸς εἴπῃς ὅτι «ἀπώλεσα αὐτό», ἀλλ' ὅτι «ἀπέδωκα». τὸ παιδίον ἀπέθανεν; ἀπεδόθη. ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν; ἀπεδόθη. «τὸ χωρίον ἀφῃρέθην». οὐκοῦν καὶ τοῦτο ἀπεδόθη. «ἀλλὰ κακὸς ὁ ἀφελόμενος». τί δὲ σοὶ μέλει, διὰ τίνος σε ὁ δοὺς ἀπῄτησε; μέχρι δ' ἂν διδῷ, ὡς ἀλλοτρίου αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελοῦ, ὡς τοῦ πανδοχείου οἱ παριόντες.

Everything in aorist. So very hard to correctly render in Esperanto, as it does not have a simple past passive.
Also a lot less wordy than the English translation. Which is to be expected of a stoic.

LOL, how many languages do you know, bro?

By the way, if you have any interest in comparing English translations, here you go:

https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/

If you click one of the names at the bottom it will give you a menu with even more translations to choose from.

I've seen this reaction before and I don't understand it. Their use seems perfectly natural to me and they seem like a valuable tool for communicating and translating.

Esperanto has five simple finite verb forms: faras, faris, faros, farus, faru. All of them are active and there is no simple passive.

Then we have 5 * 3 = 15 compound active forms: est(as/is/os/us/u) fara(ant/int/ont)a(j).
And 5 * 3 = 15 compound passive forms: est(as/is/os/us/u) fara(at/it/ot)a(j).

While there is a bijection between the compound active forms and the compound passive forms, there is no passive equivalent for the simple active forms. While “ĝi estis redonita” is clearly the passive of “mi estis redoninta”, what is the passive of “mi redonis”?

Let’s translate “mi redonis” as “I gave back” and let’s look for a translation of “it was given back”.
Is it “ĝi estas redonita”? Not quite, that’s more like “it has been given back” (present perfect).
Is it “ĝi estis redonata”? Not quite, that’s more like “it was being given back” (past progressive).
Is it “ĝi estis redonita”? Not quite, that’s more like “it had been given back” (past perfect).

Esperanto is in fact the only languages I know, where there is no symmetry between passive and active.

That to me looks very strange.

OK, it helps me. Everybody has a different linguistic background and what is helpful for one, may be confusing for others.

So to be clear, so that I understand, my translation wasn't wrong, correct? "Ĝi estis redonita" is a viable and grammatically correct way to say "It was given back"?

“Ĝi estis redonita” is indeed a passive form of the past. However with a strong note of past perfect. If in English you are OK with “The child died? It had been given back.”, then “Ĉu la infano mortis? Ĝi estis redonita.” is correct.

As I asked Zam, if kiu needs the accusative -n, wouldn't persono need it as well?

No. In “gravas la persono, kiun la Donanto elektis” the phrase “la persono” is the subject of “gravas” and therefore stands in nominative case; while “kiun” is the direct object of “elektis” and therefore stands in accusative case.

Also it seems like you two are at odds on whether it should be Donanto or Doninto.

“Giver” in English can be in Esperanto various things. If the giver has given things in the past and still is giving things now, then he is a donanto. If the giver has given things in the past, but is not giving things now, he is a doninto. If he has not given anything, but will give things, he is a dononto.

Reading the original, I came to the conclusion that Zam’s doninto is correct. In greek it says “ὁ δοὺς” which is the masculine singular aorist active participle of δίδωμι (I give), hence doninto is the closest Esperanto match.

And you seemed esti to kiel. Is that just a stylistic choice or is esti grammatically wrong?

If you use an infinitive clause, maybe you should copy Zamenhof himself and add a “por”.

LLZ:mi lin elektus por esti mia edzo

I don't understand the -u on gravu. Is there a command being given?

Kial tio gravu? Why should that matter?

I almost went with "anstataŭe." Do you like that better?

I don’t think that it matters, which words are to my liking and which aren’t. “Alternative” sounded to me like an abrupt change in lexicon. “Anstataŭe” sounds more coherent with the rest of your wording. I personaly would just omit both of them. The Greek says something like: "In case (as long as) he gives, treat it like something foreign (somebody else’s), like patrons (guests, literally: those-who-are-there [1] ) treat the inn”.

- - - -
[1] "die Anwesenden" in German. La ĉeestantoj.

PrimeMinisterK:

Zam_franca:Saluton ĉefministro, jen kiel plibonigi vian tradukon laŭ mi:

Oh, thank you for the assistance!

Neniam diru pri io ajn

Why "io ajn"? I have seen "io ajn" before but not really sure what it means.

Ĉu gravas la persono, kiun la Doninto elektis esti la ilo de ĝia revenigo?

Well since you point out the accusative on kiu, do we not need an -n on persono as well?

"Doninto" signifas "tiu, kiu donis" (the one who gave), ne "tiu, kiu donas" (the one who gives). Mi ne scias, kion precize celas la aŭtoro, do eble "Donanto" pli taŭgus.

Is Doninto simply your preference, or does Donulo not work at all?

- "Se" funkcias, sed mi persone ne vidas kialojn por ne traduki pli precize ("tiom longe kiom...").

I don't understand this. What does "tiom longe kiom" mean?

"La persono" is the subject, the verb being "gravas".

As far as I'm concerned, I never saw "donulo" or a similar word an with "-ulo" ending used by experienced speakers.

"Tiom longe kiom" means "as long as" (tiom : this quantity. Kiom is here used to compare - see also the structure "Tiel, kiel" which is similar, lernu.net has special grammar pages about correlatives).

"io ajn" means "anything".

nornen:OK, it helps me. Everybody has a different linguistic background and what is helpful for one, may be confusing for others.

Well I guess what I mean is that it looks grammatically incorrect. "Ĝi estis redonita infano" seems to me to say "It was given back a child." It seems that you need EITHER "ĝi" or "infano" but not both.

No. In “gravas la persono, kiun la Donanto elektis” the phrase “la persono” is the subject of “gravas” and therefore stands in nominative case; while “kiun” is the direct object of “elektis” and therefore stands in accusative case.

I'm confused, because isn't "kiu" a pronoun for "persono"? And therefore, though elektis is referring to kiu, isn't is also referring to persono? The person is the one that was chosen, was he not?

“Giver” in English can be in Esperanto various things. If the giver has given things in the past and still is giving things now, then he is a donanto. If the giver has given things in the past, but is not giving things now, he is a doninto. If he has not given anything, but will give things, he is a dononto.

Does this tie into participles?

Reading the original, I came to the conclusion that Zam’s doninto is correct. In greek it says “ὁ δοὺς” which is the masculine singular aorist active participle of δίδωμι (I give), hence doninto is the closest Esperanto match.

How in Hades do you know so many languages? You can also read Koine Greek now?

Zam_franca:
As far as I'm concerned, I never saw "donulo" or a similar word an with "-ulo" ending used by experienced speakers.

It would seem to me that, following Esperanto's rules, either Donulo (one who exhibits a certain characteristic, in this case that of generosity) or Donisto (one who is habitually engaged in something, in this case giving) should work.

If not, I'm disappointed, because I was kind of impressed with myself for coming up with Donulo.

Zam_franca:"Tiom longe kiom" means "as long as" (tiom : this quantity. Kiom is here used to compare - see also the structure "Tiel, kiel" which is similar, lernu.net has special grammar pages about correlatives).

Correalatives are one of the banes of my Esperanto existence.

If "tiom longe kiom" means "as long as," then would this be a proper usage:

Persono 1: Ĉu vi iros al la koncerto?

Persono 2: Mi iros tiom longe kiom mi havos sufiĉan monon por bileto.

"io ajn" means "anything".

Is this then correct:

My ne scias io ajn pri tiu libro.

I'm back with another one.

The following is actually an excerpt from an old Bible commentary by an English minister named F.B. Meyer. It's his brief introduction to the book of Jonah. Here we go:

Jonah was a native of Gath-hepher in Zebulun. Some think that he was a contemporary and disciple of Elijah, and that he therefore lived about 850 B.C. He is the oldest of the prophets whose writings have come down to us. That the book is historical may be gathered from the references of our Lord in Matthew 12:39-41 and Matthew 16:4.

The narrative presents a most striking contrast between the long-suffering mercy of God and the hard indifference of a good man to the fate of a great Gentile city. Probably it indicates the dawn of a better era, when the Chosen People shall enter upon that long education, the results of which Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:19-22; Ephesians 3:1-8.

Jona estis indiĝeno de Gat-Ĥefer en Zebulun. Iuj personoj pensas, ke li estis samtempulo kaj disĉiplo de Elija, kaj tial li vivis ĉirkau 850 p.K. Li estas la plej aĝa de la profetoj, kies skriboj, kiun ni nune havas. Ni povas scii, ke la libro estas historia per la atestoj de nia Sinjoro en Mateo 12:39-41 kaj Mateo 16:4.

La rakonto prezentas tre trafan kontraston inter la pacienca kompato de Dio kaj la firma flegmo de bona viro pri la destino de granda nejuda urbo. Probable ĝi indikas la aŭroron de plej bona epoko, kiam la Elektata Popolo eniros tiu longdaŭra edukado, de kiu Paŭlo diras al ni la rezultoj en Efesanoj 2:19-22; Efesanoj 3:1-8.