본문으로
댓글 쓰기

Can participles be overlapped in expressing some meanings?

글쓴이: Rueya, 2009년 1월 31일

글: 33

언어: English

Rueya (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 4:01:14

My question is identical with the subject;
Can participles be overlapped in expressing some meanings?
For example, in case of future-perfect-in-past tense, to express the meaning in Esperanto, which of the following suffixes can I use, estontis -inta? -ontintis? estintis -onta? -intontis? if more than one are possible, are they expressing the same meaning?

Matthieu (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 4:11:30

Theoretically it it possible, but I've never seen such combinations (probably because they are too complicated; I don't know what estontis -inta expresses).

Rueya (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 4:33:21

Um, I thought, '-ont' means 'be about/going to' and '-int' means 'have (p.p.)', so these may be able to be mixed.
[John left for the front; by the time he should return, the field b]would have been burnt[/b] to stubble.]
How do I translate these sentences into Esperanto?

jchthys (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 5:32:39

I think that this sentence, with the verb tenses translated literally, would be:
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li estis revenonta, la agro estis brulonta en stoplon.
Esperanto, however, generally eschews the use of the helping verb esti. So it might be better to say:
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro brulos en stoplon.

Miland (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 8:02:15

Rueya:John left for the front; by the time he should return, the field would have been burnt to stubble.
How do I translate these sentences into Esperanto?
Here's one suggestion:
Johano foriris al la fronto; kiam oni atendis lin reveni, la kampo estos bruligita al stoploj.

tommjames (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 8:09:54

jchthys:I think that this sentence, with the verb tenses translated literally, would be:
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li estis revenonta, la agro estis brulonta en stoplon.
Esperanto, however, generally eschews the use of the helping verb esti. So it might be better to say:
Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro brulos en stoplon.
A couple of points. 'Bruli' in esperanto is intransitive, so in order to express the idea "to burn", as in make something burn, you need to use the "ig" suffix. Also, the "ont" future participle isn't really needed since the conditional, being time independent, can point to the future just as well.

So I'd go with the following:

[John left for the front; by the time he should return, the field would have been burnt to stubble.]

John ekiris al la fronto. Kiam li revenus, la kampo jam bruligitus al stoplo.

"bruligitus" (or estus bruligita) basically means "would have been burnt".

jchthys (프로필 보기) 2009년 1월 31일 오후 9:18:25

(I used the intransitive active, bruli, rather than the passive transitive.)

I think that the meaning of the sentence is pretty much the same as:
John is leaving for the front. When he comes back, the field will have been burnt to stubble.
only that the original sentence expressed the second thought in the past. Therefore, I think that a good functional translation would be:
Johano ekiris al la fronto. Kiam li revenos, oni bruligintos la agron al stoplo.

The sentence is not expressing any kind of hypothetical condition as would warrant the -us form; should and would are the past forms of shall and will, respectively.

And of course we don't know whether it's agro or kampo from the context.

erinja (프로필 보기) 2009년 2월 1일 오전 1:02:21

Forms like "bruligintos" are occasionally used in modern Esperanto but they aren't so traditional. The more traditional way of speaking would be to say "...oni estos bruliginta la agron..."

Rogir (프로필 보기) 2009년 2월 1일 오전 2:24:16

Actually, you don't need the -ig at all precisely because burn is used intransitively here. Also, I'm not sure if using an idiomatic expression is understood well in other languages, so here's what I suggest:

Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute brulita.

Polaris (프로필 보기) 2009년 2월 1일 오전 6:33:39

Rogir:Actually, you don't need the -ig at all precisely because burn is used intransitively here. Also, I'm not sure if using an idiomatic expression is understood well in other languages, so here's what I suggest:

Johano ekveturis antaŭen. Kiam li revenos, la agro estos tute brulita.
Rogir, your Esperanto is better than mine, so feel free to disagree with me, but I believe you are mistaken here. The expression was "the field would have been burnt" not "the field would have burned". There is an implied agent here---therefore, it the verb is not intransitive.

I think that the confusion here is due to convoluted English--making it a challenge to translate it to Esperanto. One cannot translate that which doesn't make sense in the original. "By the time he should return" doesn't fit with "the field would have been burnt to stubble" If what was intended were "by the time he WAS TO HAVE returned", or "by the time was expected to have returned"...something like that, then the "would have been burnt..." part would fit. Another possibility is to leave the "by the time he should return" but change the last part to "the field WILL HAVE been burnt to stubble". One way or the other, something has to be changed in order for the sentence to flow time-wise in English. Once we know what is intended in English, the Esperanto will be much easier to render.

다시 위로