Ujumbe: 33
Lugha: English
Rogir (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 1 Februari 2009 12:30:10 alasiri
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute brulinta.
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute bruligita.
erinja (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 1 Februari 2009 3:05:14 alasiri
He is going to a front of war. So he is not going "antauxen" (=forward); he is going to a "fronto" (a battlefront, a line of battle). We can safely assume, in this context, that the field is not being accidentally burned; someone is burning it on purpose, because there is a war on.
Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 1 Februari 2009 5:54:39 alasiri
Rogir:the right one would be, depending on implied agent or not:I'm persuaded that fields usually burn because someone or something set fire to them, so I've revised mine to bruligita. I've used os for something that was anticipated in the past, following the convention for reported speech. Here's my revised suggestion again, to save flipping back:
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute brulinta.
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute bruligita.
Johano foriris al la fronto; kiam oni atendis lin reveni, la kampo estos bruligita al stoploj.
But English tenses are often more complex than Esperanto ones would be, and this is not an easy translation.
ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Februari 2009 5:02:56 alasiri
Miland:I'm persuaded that fields usually burn because someone or something set fire to themI was going to say 'not so in Australia' but even then in that extreme case the sun would be the burning-agent.
Anyway, I take it 'brulinta*' assumes the reader knows something is causing the burning, and 'bruligita' assumes that the reader may not be aware that someone else is burning stuff?
*Does 'estos brulinta' mean "will have burnt" or "will have been burning"? Sorry for such a question, but I'm asking this on a hot Australian night when I can't sleep
Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Februari 2009 7:59:00 alasiri
ceigered:..I take it 'brulinta*' assumes the reader knows something is causing the burning, and 'bruligita' assumes that the reader may not be aware that someone else is burning stuff?Sounds fair enough. I would say that both your interpretations of estos brulinta are OK. Like I said, not an easy translation.
*Does 'estos brulinta' mean "will have burnt" or "will have been burning"? Sorry for such a question, but I'm asking this on a hot Australian night when I can't sleep
'Hot Australian night' - don't I wish! It's been the coldest winter for 18 years, thanks to an arctic wind from Russia.
ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Februari 2009 6:09:53 asubuhi
Miland:Sounds fair enough. I would say that both your interpretations of estos brulinta are OK. Like I said, not an easy translation.Ah ok, so its not just me thinking that this is slightly harder than normal - phew
'Hot Australian night' - don't I wish! It's been the coldest winter for 18 years, thanks to an arctic wind from Russia.
We'll its getting colder here in Australia, maybe by means of some flawed logic it will get hotter over in England?
RiotNrrd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Februari 2009 6:48:55 asubuhi
"-inta" is active. Therefore it is not correct here. You want the passive "-ita".
So, if you want to indicate that in the future, some activity (in this case burning) will have been completed, then the construction you want is "estos brulita".
Johano iris fronten. Tiam, kiam li revenos, la kampo estos brulita ĝis stoplo.
ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Februari 2009 9:10:56 asubuhi
RiotNrrd:Burning is a passive activity if you are a field. You aren't typically actively burning yourself; you're just sitting there burning through no action of your own.Ah now it makes a bit more sense. Cheers RiotNrrd (Btw, how do you pronounce your username?
"-inta" is active. Therefore it is not correct here. You want the passive "-ita".
So, if you want to indicate that in the future, some activity (in this case burning) will have been completed, then the construction you want is "estos brulita".
Johano iris fronten. Tiam, kiam li revenos, la kampo estos brulita ĝis stoplo.
) Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Februari 2009 10:27:38 asubuhi
RiotNrrd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 4 Februari 2009 2:29:13 asubuhi
Miland:Ita only goes with transitive verbs, and bruli is intransitive. That is why brulinta and bruligita are the correct forms, depending on how one interprets the English passage. In Teach yourself Esperanto we have on p. 121 pendinta, on p. 147 fermita, and on p. 179 fermi and pendi listed in transitive and intransitive lists respectively.I'm sorry, but I was unable to find anything in there that says that "-ita" only goes with transitive verbs. I see the discussion about "-ig" versus "-iĝ", but nothing about which participles go with which kind of verb.
On page 121 it illustrates the differences in meaning between "ferminta" and "fermita". Note that it does not say that one form is correct and one form incorrect (although "fermi" is transitive, and according to your assertion only "fermita" would be right) - both forms are treated as being correct, but simply with different meanings.
"Chapter" 649 in Step By Step In Esperanto also covers this, and also does not specify transitivity versus intransitivity. It simply says (about "-ita") "It makes an adjective showing that the action indicated is finished, completed; a thing of the past" (italics in the original text). In mapping "-ita" to English equivalents, it explicitly states "The suffix -ITA = -ed, -d, -t, -en" (again, italics reproduced from the source). Whether you say "burned" or "burnt", it still matches this ending-equivalency.
Mi ĵetas la ŝuon.
I throw the shoe.
This is the standard, simple tense, form.
Mi estas ĵetanta la ŝuon.
I am throwing the shoe.
The action is throwing, and I am doing it. The subject (me) is performing the action, so the active form is used.
La ŝuo estas ĵetata.
The shoe is being thrown.
The action is throwing, but the shoe isn't doing it. The subject (the shoe) is having the action done TO it. So the passive form is used.
The transitivity of ĵeti does not affect which I can use; both are available, depending on my meaning.