Sisu juurde
Vasta

Two questions

kelle poolt Rohan, 20. november 2008

Postitused: 10

Keel: English

Rohan (Näita profiili) 20. november 2008 13:13.37

Hi!

Here are the two questions:

1. Can I translate "Also, I can speak Esperanto." as "Ankaŭ, mi povas paroli Esperanton."?

The basic issue is, can 'ankaŭ' be used the way I have? It's very tempting to use it thus, but I'm not sure if it's correct.

Depending on the context, 'plie' or 'cetere' would also suffice here instead of the 'also', wouldn't it?

2. Is this sentence correct:

"La vetero estas ne tre bona escepte dum pluvas."

The dicey part here is the 'escepte dum pluvas'.

Thanks for your help!

- Rohan.

mnlg (Näita profiili) 20. november 2008 13:18.33

1. Yes, but I think "Krome" is better suited for what you want to express.

2. "escepte kiam pluvas", "escepte dum pluvo".

Rohan (Näita profiili) 20. november 2008 14:08.49

mnlg:1. Yes, but I think "Krome" is better suited for what you want to express.

2. "escepte kiam pluvas", "escepte dum pluvo".
I appreciate the suggestions/corrections, but as far as possible, could you also include reasons as to why you think something is unsuitable/incorrect, in grammatical terms?

Miland (Näita profiili) 20. november 2008 14:21.00

The presence of ne in the second sentence makes me uncertain about just what you intended to say. If you meant to say 'The weather is not too bad except when it rains' you would need La vetero ne estas tro malbona escepte kiam pluvas (or indeed La vetero estas bona, escepte kiam pluvas). But if it were 'The weather is not too good, especially when it rains' you would need La vetero ne estas tro bona, precipe kiam pluvas.

To describe it grammatically, I would say that precipe and escepte affect or qualify in some way the truth of the previous clause. In the case of precipe we emphasize it, whereas in the case of escepte we compromise it in a particular case. Escepte = kun la escepto (PMEG 33.2.4, section `Priskribo de A-vorto aŭ E-vorto', 8th example in list, or Detala Gramatiko, section 23.1.2, last example in list).

Rohan (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 11:27.11

Thanks to both of you!

But I'm still confused regarding the first sentence, although mnlg did say "Yes" to it. Is it indeed a correct translation?

mnlg (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 11:52.09

I think it is.

I see it as:

[Mi aldonu] Ankaŭ: mi povas paroli esperanton.

I still think "krome" is a better choice but I don't see any technical problem with your version.

Other experienced speakers are welcome to correct me, of course.

Miland (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 14:22.15

In PMEG (14.3.6, section 'La pozicio de ankaŭ') we have:
En la parolo oni normale emfaze akcentas tiun frazparton, al kiu ankaŭ rilatas... I translate: In speech we normally emphasize that part of the sentence to which ankaŭ relates.

The context would usually determine the appropriate place of emphasis. Thus if you already spoke other languages, and wanted to say that you also had Esperanto, then you might say Mi povas paroli ankaŭ Esperanton. If, however you were saying that your knowledge went beyond book learning, and that you could speak the language as well as read it, you might say Esperanton mi povas ankaŭ paroli. A third example: if you wanted to say that you could teach classes, play a sport and also be able to do this, you might have Mi povas ankaŭ paroli Esperanton.

So it is unusual to emphasize a whole sentence with this preposition, but, as mnlg said, and I would agree, not illegal. Possibly you might use your original sentence if the context included statements about what you were as well as what you could do, e.g. Mi estas afabla, mi estas ano de la universitato, kaj ankaŭ, mi povas paroli Esperanton! Maybe you would say that if you were standing for an election of some sort.

I'll leave it to you as a short exercise to decide what it would mean if there hadn't been a comma in your original sentence!

Rohan (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 14:36.00

Miland:
I'll leave it to you as a short exercise to decide what it would mean if there hadn't been a comma in your original sentence!
Actually, it so happens that I did indeed first encounter the sentence without the comma. It was sent as part of a response to one of the correspondence-exercises in Ana Pana.

"Ankaŭ mi povas paroli Esperanton." would mean:

"I, too, can speak Esperanto." (i.e., there are others as well who can do the same.)

Rohan (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 18:28.38

Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal to say:

"Dum estis varme, ..."

If so, I don't see why "dum pluvas" should be incorrect. And if SO, I don't see why "escepte dum pluvas" is incorrect.

Miland (Näita profiili) 21. november 2008 19:14.04

Rohan:Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal to say: "Dum estis varme, ..."
.. And if SO, I don't see why "escepte dum pluvas" is incorrect.
Personally I would say that it is a matter of style rather than correctness. Dum pluvas sounds like a scientific or objective description of conditions under which one expects to observe something or is instructed not to do something. We say 'I feel depressed when it is raining', treating the bad weather as a single event, rather than 'I feel depressed while it is raining', which concentrates on the duration of the event. But it is by no means impossible that sometimes, one might wish to describe the event in such detail.

Tagasi üles