Aportes: 52
Idioma: English
niko-tina (Mostrar perfil) 12 de enero de 2010 23:40:01
nshepperd:Here the infinitive works as a substantive. That's why we use an adjective.ceigered:And, I'm no expert, but "estas sendube danĝerega" might work better - the adverb seems like part of the overall action being described, not the describer, thus putting "danĝerega" as an adjective, so the sentence kind of becomes "(la menciota ago) estas sendube danĝera tieli".Oh well, I was interpreting "danĝerege" as referring to the verb "tieli", hence to be an adverb. However something like ĝi estas sendube danĝerega would make sense as well.
If it was a verb, it would modify estas, just like sendube. But I guess it would make much sense that way.
dimichxp (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 01:51:42
niko-tina:It doesn't work that way. *Estas danĝera fari...* is incorrect, adjective can never be attributed to a verb. Estas danĝere fari... is correct, but from grammatical POV it is ambigous (is the adverb goes to estas or to fari), but usually context solves the issue.
Here the infinitive works as a substantive. That's why we use an adjective.
If it was a verb, it would modify estas, just like sendube. But I guess it would make much sense that way.
nshepperd (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 02:46:58
Detala gramatiko
Resti kun leono estas danĝere. Tio, kio estas danĝera, estas la ago resti kun leono. Danĝere estas predikativo de resti. Ĝi havu E-finaĵon, ĉar ĝi estas priskribo de verbo.
niko-tina (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 09:11:54
ceigered (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 10:58:17
dimichxp:I have to disagree - as Niko said (but I think he has retracted that commentniko-tina:It doesn't work that way. *Estas danĝera fari...* is incorrect, adjective can never be attributed to a verb. Estas danĝere fari... is correct, but from grammatical POV it is ambigous (is the adverb goes to estas or to fari), but usually context solves the issue.
Here the infinitive works as a substantive. That's why we use an adjective.
If it was a verb, it would modify estas, just like sendube. But I guess it would make much sense that way.
), I always thought the infinitive acted as a substantive. To me, the adjective does not describe the verb, rather, it describes an assumed (but not written) "the action" - "tiu cxi ago, kuregi, estas dangxerega kiam pluvas". That's my thinking, at least. If the adjective is "corrected" and changed into an adverb, how do we know if the adverb is refering to? "Estas dangxerege kuregi" - "There is, dangerously, to run"? Or "There is to run dangerously"? Therefore, to prevent the adverb's purpose from being misunderstood (especially by those who have rigid word order and a blurred distinction of adverbs and adjectives), I think adjectives are better. At least we know the adjective is being used to describe the thing on the end of the copula, where as with adverbs, it could be describing the thing on the end of the copula, or the copula itself.However, Nshepperd's link seems to be in disagreement (although the section regarding "esti" did not seem to say I was wrong, it just seemed to treat my ways as they did not exist, so effectively they DID say I was wrong!
). There's also no doubt my bias for analytical/isolating languages is coming through, so I might not understand the customs of synthetic languages that well when it comes to verbs 
. dimichxp (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 11:46:08
ceigered:To me, the adjective does not describe the verb, rather, it describes an assumed (but not written) "the action" - "tiu cxi ago, kuregi, estas dangxerega kiam pluvas". That's my thinking, at least.Of course you can always advocate such usage with "it was implied", and even grammar nazis won't beat you
, but isn't too much implied? If you think not, i have great solution - not to say anything at all, everything may be implied (i wish it worked on my tomorrow geometry exam ). I, from my point of view, seeing adjective would say that subject is implied, and this phrase may be interpreted absolutely differently (adjective and esti goes to implied subject) depending on context. So, the solution is not to imply anything in such cases .As said before, there may be ambiguity (as you probably already remarked while being pretty logical language, esperanto allows ambiguity in perverbaj priskriboj). But there is not a lot of confusion, since it's usually pretty obvious what does adverb describe (i'd love to see example when it is not obvious!).
ceigered (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 12:42:57
I shall now use "-e" then.However, using reverse logic, by saying nothing and implying everything in Esperanto, I can use the language "better" than anyone else, and therefore can become the ultimate authority of the language! My first change of Esperanto: after every 5th letter in a word there must be an "-oj" to annoy people who don't like -oj. My second change: advocating the use of "mal" with words already affixed by "mal"! Salutojojn al miaj amikoojn! Kiel vi fartaojs? Mi fartaojs malmaojlboneoj!
Just joking ... 
Rogir (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 22:46:15
Ĉu ni malforlasu la malnoktmanĝon?
- Malne.
Malaĉe, mi malsatas.
Shall we go to lunch(=tagmanĝo)?
- Yes.
Good, I am hungry.
erinja (Mostrar perfil) 13 de enero de 2010 23:58:05
Estas malvarme! = It's cold!
Verbs are always described with an -e ending. If there isn't a noun present, you can't use the -a ending. Even if there is a noun that is IMPLIED but not stated, you still can't use the -a ending to describe it.
That's why we say "La vetero estas malvarma" but "Estas malvarme", even if in "Estas malvarme", we are outside, and it is easy to deduce that we are referring to the weather.
Sometimes grammar depends on what is implied but not stated - and sometimes it depends only on what is actually stated. The trick, as you study the language, is to learn which situations have one case and which have the other.
On the topic of language games, I was once at an Esperanto event where we played the "no circumflexes" game - trying to speak Esperanto without using the 'ĉapelitaj literoj'! Asking a yes or no question becomes a real trick!
dimichxp (Mostrar perfil) 14 de enero de 2010 05:18:03
erinja:Verbs are always described with an -e ending. If there isn't a noun present, you can't use the -a ending. Even if there is a noun that is IMPLIED but not stated, you still can't use the -a ending to describe it.Nope, if you want to describe implied noun, you should use -a (which is logical). "Estas malvarme" doesn't imply "vetero" as subject, it just describes the state of everything (anything undefined). Hey, that's just like russian!
Example:
The first case with implied noun (or pronoun) in the second sentence:
Mi ŝatas la veteron. Estas agrabla/varma.
I like the weather. It [the weather] is pleasing/warm.
Now the example with no implied subject (the second sentence is subjectless):
Mi ŝatas la veteron. Estas agrable/varme.
I like the weather. It is pleasing/warm [here].
The ideas of both examples are pretty same, but first depends on context (vetero), the second may be used everywhere.