Til innholdet
Svare

Grammatical Mistake In Joke (or not?)

fra Polaris,2009 12 25

Meldinger: 19

Språk: English

tommjames (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 26 14:18:24

horsto:Didn't you read my message or do you think I'm wrong?
I read it, and didn't see anything wrong.

horsto:@tommjames: What's the difference between he was in a dressed state and he was dressed?
None that I can see. But the second example sentence I gave was when he was dressed. That is, he was dressed, and not something else. The first sentence merely indicates that he happened to be in that state.

The section in PMEG I linked to has the example Ni lin trovis malvivan.[Rt.138] = Ni lin trovis, kiam li estis malviva.. If you imagine that sentence but without the "n" I think you'll find the difference to be more or less the same between malviva/vestita and malvivan/vestitan.

Admittedly the difference is minimal and is more to do with nuance than meaning, but it is there.

hoss (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 26 17:14:06

The difference may be made clearer by the following examples:
  • Li farbis la pordon ruĝan. = He painted the red door.
  • Li farbis la pordon ruĝa. = He painted the door red.
In (1), ruĝan simply describes the door; the door was already red, and he painted it.

In (2), ruĝa is linked by an implied "to be": He painted the door (to be) red. It wasn't red when he began painting, but it became red as a result.

horsto (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 26 17:59:45

tommjames:I read it, and didn't see anything wrong.
I'm sorry to write again, you are confusing me.
If you agree with my message, then I don't understand why you explain the very small difference between renkontas Ejnŝtejnon, vestita and renkontas Ejnŝtejnon, vestitan.
The original sentence was not about if Einstein was dressed or not, or if he was in a dressed state.
Seppik:
64. Mallongigado de frazoj.
...
Atentu, ke la pasiva participo, same kiel la aktiva, havas la saman kazon kaj nombron kiel la substantivo, al kiu ĝi rilatas.
That means, if Seppik is right, then there can be no discussion if -n or not.

darkweasel (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 26 19:23:47

He isn't completely wrong, but there can, as PMEG explains us, as well be no -n.

Maybe you will understand what tommjames and I mean with these two Esperanto-German examples:
vidis Ejnŝtejnon vestitan per ... = sah Einstein, der ... anhatte
vidis Ejnŝtejnon vestita per ... = sah Einstein, als er ... anhatte

horsto (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 26 22:29:42

darkweasel:He isn't completely wrong, but there can, as PMEG explains us, as well be no -n.
Maybe you will understand what tommjames and I mean with these two Esperanto-German examples:
vidis Ejnŝtejnon vestitan per ... = sah Einstein, der ... anhatte
vidis Ejnŝtejnon vestita per ... = sah Einstein, als er ... anhatte
I didn't say that you or tommjames are wrong, and absolutely not that you are completely wrong. Seppik writes, that the noun and the participle always have the same case. I also noticed this usage in literature, but I'm not sure sure if it's generally accepted. I'm also wondering that I don't find that in PMEG.

tommjames (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 27 18:22:03

I don't understand why you explain the very small difference between renkontas Ejnŝtejnon, vestita and renkontas Ejnŝtejnon, vestitan
I thought it might be useful to do so. Seemed relevant to the original post of the thread. *shrug*

Polaris (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 28 05:13:33

I GOT IT! Okay, everyone, the lightbulb went off. Here's the scoop: When the accusative -N is in place on the adjective, what is being said is that the co-worker met Einstein (who was already) dressed in the same old coat. WITHOUT the accusative -N the implication would be that the co-worker met Einstein (as he was being) dressed in the same old coat.

It's easier to understand with the word vidi (to see) and talk about a criminal. With the accusative -N, "Mi vidis la krimulon kaptitan " would mean you saw the captured criminal. In other words, you saw the criminal (who was already) captured.

NOW, suppose you left off the accusative -N ("Mi vidis la krimulon kaptita.") You'd be saying you saw the criminal captured. In other words, you saw the criminal (as he was being) captured.

Thank you so much to everyone who tried to help me understand this. It all makes much more sense now.

tommjames (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 28 10:04:05

Polaris:suppose you left off the accusative -N ("Mi vidis la krimulon kaptita.") You'd be saying you saw the criminal captured. In other words, you saw the criminal (as he was being) captured.
It could do, if the sense of the passive voice was the passive of becoming. However if it were the passive of being then it would mean that the criminal was already caught. In English the difference between the two would be "I saw the criminal get caught" and "I saw that the criminal had been caught" respectively. In Esperanto these 2 ideas are rendered the same way when using the passive participles.

ceigered (Å vise profilen) 2009 12 28 10:16:49

Now it all makes sense!

Tibake til toppen