dimichxp:

niko-tina:
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.

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.

I have to disagree - as Niko said (but I think he has retracted that comment ), 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 .

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!).

Haha! Good points Dimichxp! I just realised that my solution was just as ambiguous if not more than the -e solution! 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 ...

You might like a game which we played during JES: the goal of the game is to use mal- as often as possible, but of course not twice together and it still has to be correct Esperanto. Example:

Ĉu ni malforlasu la malnoktmanĝon?
- Malne.
Malaĉe, mi malsatas.

Shall we go to lunch(=tagmanĝo)?
- Yes.
Good, I am hungry.

ceigered, one thing that might help you as you translate things back and forth between Esperanto and English is that "estas" all alone isn't always translated by "there is"! "It is" is also a very common translation.

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!

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.

Cheers all (again),

@ Erinja: I'm aware that estas means it is/there is, but they are then again the same thing - they both describe the existence of an undefined (or assumed) thing ("there is" = defines the thing, "it is" = describes the thing)

@ Erinja and Dimichxp:
While I have to say that "adjectives can't be used without nouns" seems like a form of over-correctness and somewhat disregarding the properties of adjectives vs, adverbs and their associated functions, I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication (where undoubtedly not everyone wants to have a linguistics conversation regarding the differences between word classes and their functions, and people speak just what they've learnt from others ).

So at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

ceigered:I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication .. at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

So far as practical communication goes, Erinja is one of the most experienced Esperantists on the forum. I promise you that you will not go wrong by listening to her.

As for the distinction between 'There is' and 'It is', I'll write to you about that separately.

Miland:

ceigered:I really don't know what to think about in terms of Esperanto in practical communication .. at the moment I have no idea who to listen to

So far as practical comunication goes, Erinja is one of the most experienced Esperantists on the forum. I promise you that you will not go wrong by listening to her.

As for the distinction between 'There is' and 'It is', I'll write to you about that separately.

Ok, I'll go with Erinja's advice... For now -shifty eyes-

And don't worry about the there is/it is distinction, I understand what's being said - unless you want to talk about it anyway, in which I've got no problem

dimichxp:
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.

You are wrong. In Esperanto you can never use -a if there is no subject in the sentence. Never.
In the first case you mention, the right sentence would be:

Mi ŝatas la veteron. Ĝi estas varma.

Many people think that in Esperanto you are allowed to just leave the subject away, but that is not true. Only in cases where other languages use a dummy subject, such as 'it' in 'it is raining', you should not use a subject in Esperanto.