Mesaĝoj: 22
Lingvo: English
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-08 20:03:31
horsto:E-participles do relate to the subject as PMEG says but that doesn't mean this type of adverb doesn't describe the verb. The verb is being performed by the subject, so by describing the verb, you link back to the subject. "Manĝante" obviously relates to the subject because it's the subject that's doing the eating. But the e-particple is part of the adverbial construct "Manĝante pomon" which describes the way in which the subject "legis sian libron".
Just something to add to this. The e-forms are without doubt more popular, and more suited to these cases when you want to show another action in addition to the main action, going on at the same time. However I think there's a place for the adjectivial forms. In Esperanto it's quite permissible to add in a description of the subject's state rather than describing associated actions adverbially. Some examples of that I found in La Ondo de Esperanto are vi laciĝinta sidas (you sit having become tired), Griza kaj ŝrumpinta ŝi venis (grey and shrivelled she came), and another one at PMEG ĉiuj floroj pendas sekiĝintaj (all flowers are hanging, having dried out). I would say then that along these lines something like leginta mi sidis is a possibility not to be overlooked.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-08 20:38:35
horsto:For me it's an error to use the 'a' form,It's certainly not an error, adjectives are very much capable of describing the subject while it performs an action, and that's all "leginta" really is. This I beleive would come under the category of what PMEG terms perverba priskribo., examples on the page there. I think that as well as the examples on the above post should be sufficient to show it is at least possible, if not perhaps the most fitting for the idea ceigered wants to express.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-08 21:12:39
horsto (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-08 21:48:29
tommjames: But the e-particple is part of the adverbial construct "Manĝante pomon" which describes the way in which the subject "legis sian libron".I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I think that you are thinking too much about possible meanings:
In the sentence:
Manĝante pomon li legis sian libron.
Manĝante pomon does not describe how this book was read. The meaning is definitely:
Li legis sian libron kaj manĝis samtempe pomon.
The only meaning here is to express that 2 things happen at the same time, or one thing after the other (Manĝinte).
tommjames:This page in PMEG tells how an adjective can describe a subject. I agree.
It's certainly not an error, adjectives are very much capable of describing the subject while it performs an action, and that's all "leginta" really is. This I beleive would come under the category of what PMEG terms perverba priskribo., examples on the page there. I think that as well as the examples on the above post should be sufficient to show it is at least possible, if not perhaps the most fitting for the idea ceigered wants to express.
But in your sentence:
Mi sidis, leganta libron
there is not only an adjective, there is an adjective participle with an accusative object.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-08 22:33:12
horsto:I'm sorry, but that is wrong [...] Manĝante pomon does not describe how this book was read.You're right in that it dosn't describe the actual manner of the reading of the book (although it certainly could if I wanted it to: skanante la vortojn rapide, li legis sian libron etc. But I don't think "describing the verb" ought to be limited to that perspective. The very act of linking two same-time actions together naturally implies, according to context, some form of relation between them beyond the mere fact that they are happening at the same time. I see no reason to exclude descriptive relations from that, and indeed it will often be the most sensible interpretation, even if that isn't what is being explicitly shown through the grammar.
However I do accept though that I was wrong to suggest that it always means this.
horsto:But in your sentence:I don't think it matters. Participle adjectives can show state just as well as regular ones (see examples in second to last post), and the presence of an object does not make "leganta" any less of a stateful adjective than if it were missing. By including the object, you're just further qualifying the nature of that state.
Mi sidis, leganta libron
there is not only an adjective, there is an adjective participle with an accusative object..
In any case all I was showing there was that it's possible to use the participles alongside verbs to show state, rather than action. My experience is that this kind of usage is far from non-standard; I regularly see inta/anta forms where an inte/ante form could do just as well. I accept that it's probably not the best solution to ceigered's question, as I did make clear. But I think it is relevant to the question generally. The difference in nuance between them may be minimal, but it can be useful sometimes.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-09 02:56:39
One of my textbooks - "The Esperanto Teacher", by Mason Stuttard - says about adverbial participles: "It is an elegant form of expression, and its free and correct use stamps the expert."
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-09 08:08:46
Miland:Of course you might wish to equally emphasize both as a way of passing time and say Mi sidis (apud la oceanbordo en temperaturo de 40 Celsiuso, ho bonŝanco!) kaj legis.I see - so in a way, -ant- can be used where the -ant- verb isn't mind breakingly important or critical to the overall set of actions, and the "kaj ....-is" can be used when the actions are more or less equal (sidis kaj legis could tell the reader that the sitting is important (because the character's relaxing) and legis could tell the reader that they're at the same time engrossed in a book, where as sidis, legante could tell the reader that they are relaxing by sitting and just happen to be reading as well).... Does that sound ok?
(KAJ JES! 40 GRADOJ CELSIUSAJ! FRENEZ'! Just like Britain at the moment I believe, only the polar opposite?
)Regarding Tommjames and Horto's debate, I have to say that -e seems to be more common and understandable (from what I've read and learnt in this short space of time
), however -a seems equally right, but more complex as it involves a noun/verb-adjective relationship which is "broken" by the word order. It's logical when thought about, but it's like what teleportation is to walking - it is a relationship that transcends the physical order of things, if that makes any sense. At least that's the impression I'm getting. Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-09 15:46:33
ceigered:..so in a way, -ant- can be used where the -ant- verb isn't..critical..and the "kaj ....-is" can be used when the actions are more or less equal .. whereas sidis, legante could tell the reader that they are relaxing by sitting and just happen to be reading as well).... Does that sound ok?Sounds OK to me.
ceigered:(KAJ JES! 40 GRADOJ CELSIUSAJ! FRENEZ'! Just like Britain at the moment I believe, only the polar opposite?Britain is in the grip of a freeze with salt for roads starting to run short, so that they've had to order imports - and to ration the stuff till they get here after 2 weeks.
But the real 'polar opposite' is probably with Uvi and his minus 45C winter in Quebec..
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-09 16:44:00
(and just realised the possible "polar opposite" pun )Speaking of puns, imagine the fun at a Eo conference in britain:
"Sal', ĉiuj!"
"Bedaŭras! Ni ne havas salon tie ĉi!"
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-10 12:50:13
ceigered:Speaking of puns, imagine the fun at a Eo conference in britain:Good one!
"Sal', ĉiuj!"
"Bedaŭras! Ni ne havas salon tie ĉi!"
