K vsebini
Odgovori

Ĉu ĉerizoj estas brunaj?

od furrykef, 26. marec 2009

Sporočila: 10

Jezik: English

furrykef (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 00:52:17

The book A Complete Grammar of Esperanto has these sentences in chapter 5:

Ĉu persiko estas ruĝa?
Jes, ĝi estas kaj ruĝa kaj dolĉa.
Ĉu ĉerizoj estas brunaj?
Ne, ili estas nek brunaj nek nigraj, sed flavaj.

I'm a bit confused because in the first sentence, "persiko" isn't taking the article, so it sounds like, "Is a peach red?", which doesn't make much sense to me unless it's a question about peaches in general... but wouldn't it be "Ĉu la persiko estas ruĝa?" in that case?

Then the question about cherries has the same apparent problem, now even more confusing because the answer seems to imply that cherries are generally yellow.

The only other possibility that crosses my mind is "Is this peach red" or "Are these cherries yellow?", but wouldn't those sentences take a demonstrative adjective?

Can anybody shed some light on this? ^^;

- Kef

erinja (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 02:04:59

The sentence is assuming that cherries are generally yellow, but it doesn't really matter. There are some yellow cherries.

I wouldn't really call peaches "red" either for that matter.

In any case, the grammar is fine. In English, we would indeed say 'Persikoj estas ruĝaj" (Peaches are red - a general statement referring to peaches as a group). In Esperanto, it's totally ok to say 'Persiko estas ruĝa'. That sentence also refers to peaches in general, not just to one specific peach. If you were to say 'La persiko estas ruĝa', then you are talking about one specific peach and not making a general statement.

I wouldn't read too much into these sentences, though. Since it's chapter 5, I assume the main point is to teach you adjective/noun agreement (persiko-ruĝa // ĉerizoj-brunaj), and to teach you how to ask and answer yes or no questions (with "ĉu" added to a sentence that would otherwise be a statement of fact)

These are weird sentences but still not as weird as the famous first sentence in the old French Assimil book teaching English - "My tailor is rich".

tommjames (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 10:34:50

erinja:If you were to say 'La persiko estas ruĝa', then you are talking about one specific peach and not making a general statement.
True of course, that "la" refers to specific objects, but I think it's worth pointing out that the definite article can also mean the entire class of the object, and by extension, the object in general. In The 16 rules of Esperanto grammar by Don Harlow, there is the following example:

La 16 Rules:
EXAMPLE
libro = book, a book
la libro = the book

The main difference between the use of the definite article in Esperanto and in English is that in Esperanto the article, with a singular noun, may be used to indicate an entire class.

EXAMPLE
la leono estas danĝera besto = lions are dangerous animals
PMEG also clarifies.

As such according to the context, La persiko estas ruĝa could be speaking about the colour of peaches in general.

I'm sure you were already aware, but I thought it worth pointing out.

1Guy1 (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 11:35:39

tommjames:EXAMPLE la leono estas danĝera besto = lions are dangerous animals
You could translate the above literally into English & use it ("The Lion is a dangerous beast").

If you used in it a conversation about Lions' it would be taken as referring to Lions generally. A quick google for a recent example brought up "the ipod touch is a dangerous beast"

tommjames (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 11:49:03

1Guy1:You could translate the above literally into English & use it ("The Lion is a dangerous beast").

If you used in it a conversation about Lions' it would be taken as referring to Lions generally.
I agree. I don't really agree with what Harlow says, that it's a difference to how English works. Although perhaps he was speaking about what is more usual.

furrykef (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 13:48:18

I noticed that Harlow does say, in essence, that the definite article is always optional in Esperanto, which would imply in turn that it's not strictly necessary in "la leono estas danĝera besto" or indeed any sentence at all. As a learner of two languages without articles -- Japanese and Classical Latin -- I must say I do like the idea of dropping the article altogether, but I'm interested in speaking the language as it is generally spoken.

(I have to wonder, though, if this "learn Esperanto as it is generally spoken" is a dangerous idea. That would seem to be going down the path of making Esperanto as complex as natural languages. But then if you oversimplify the language, you can end up with miscommunication. Hmm.)

Anyway, Zamenhof's original 16 rules in the Fundamento don't seem to mention anything at all about articles except that "la" is the definite article, so it would seem that theoretically you can use or omit it whenever any natural language would do so. That would seem to make the meaning of the definite article a bit fuzzy, though, and make it difficult to determine whether the omission of the article has any particular meaning different from if an article had been used in the given sentence.

But it seems safe to say that the omission of the article doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in the topic, so I guess you've answered my question. ridulo.gif

jchthys (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 13:54:18

Is "roza" considered a shade of "ruĝa", the way in English azure is considered a shade of blue?

Rogir (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 14:41:27

As far as pink is a shade of red, yes.

furrykef (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 17:07:43

That doesn't explain flavaj ĉerizoj, though... but perhaps nothing can unless the author has seen a lot of yellow cherries okulumo.gif

erinja (Prikaži profil) 26. marec 2009 20:02:39

Remember that the root word roz/ indicates a noun. A "rozo" is a rose. "Roza" would mean "having to do with roses". The usual word for pink is, therefore, "rozkolora"

As far as the use of the article, I would not conclude from this that the article is meaningless and optional in Esperanto. At best, you can conclude that it is optional when you are speaking in general terms ("Leono estas dangxera besto" or "La leono estas dangxera besto")

If you wanted to speak of a specific individual, you have to use "la", or somehow indicate with another word that you are being specific.

So, for instance, if I have a brown dog and I want to say that this specific dog is brown, I need to say "La hundo estas bruna". Or perhaps, if I'm pointing at it, "Tiu hundo estas bruna". (That dog is brown). Simply saying "Hundo estas bruna" doesn't cut it in this case; I would be talking about any old dog, and not about this specific dog.

Nazaj na začetek