Al la enhavo
Respondi

"while .....ing"

de ceigered, 2010-januaro-12

Mesaĝoj: 52

Lingvo: English

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 09:08:08

Rogir:In that case I will start omitting subjects in English too where are not necessary. Will still be understandable, right?
It will, it's not right given the rules of this language, just as it's not right in Esperanto, as you've said, but it's still understandable. In fact, it's the stereotypical accent for many non-English speakers in English pop-culture (or Borat, an entire movie where we hear "Is good!" "Is sexy!" "Is (insert basic adjective or noun here)!").

So, is all good yah? lango.gif

dimichxp (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 09:38:52

Rogir:In that case I will start omitting subjects in English too where are not necessary. Will still be understandable, right?
I don't know english well, but i guess it explicitly forbids implying the subject (at least in realis mood). Esperanto does not, so subject can be implied (but of course it makes sense only in very limited number of cases).

Rogir (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-16 01:59:18

Well, Esperanto does just as much as English, for all I know. I challenge you to find any grammar guide explicitly talking about the omitting of the subject.

dimichxp (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-16 03:55:19

Rogir:Well, Esperanto does just as much as English, for all I know.
It surely does not. English has fixed word order, while esperanto's one is relatively free. Esperanto is more flexible than english in almost any way.
Roger:I challenge you to find any grammar guide explicitly talking about the omitting of the subject.
Well, the sentence from PMEG is enough.
Added: I have found article in PMEG which clearly describes my point:
Bertilo:
Oni normale ne forlasas la subjekton de ĉefverbo, se la ĉefverbo mem ĉeestas en la frazo. Tio estas baza principo en Esperanto.
...
Alispecaj forlasoj de subjekto okazas nur en rapida ĉiutageca parolo, nur en ĉeffrazoj, kaj nur kiam la kunteksto plene klarigas, kiu estas la subjekto.
That's what i have previously said: usually no one will drop subject, since it creates confusion in most of the cases. But it's possible to drop it, when it's clear from the context. It's correct, just considered to be colloquial style.

Rogir (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-16 16:55:15

I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.

dimichxp (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-16 17:02:26

Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.
Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-16 21:52:50

dimichxp:
Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.
Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?
I don't see that Rogir made a mistake. I think you misunderstood the meaning of what PMEG was saying.

I understand from what is written in the PMEG that some people, when speaking very colloquially, will end up leaving out the subject in a very few cases. It's not recommended colloquial style by any means; it's only an acknowledgment of what can happen sometimes. Colloquial Esperanto is normally entirely grammatically correct, simply informal. Leaving off subjects is not grammatically correct, period.

In English it is forbidden to drop the subject, and in Esperanto, it is also forbidden. But in rapid and informal speech, sometimes grammatical rules get broken for the sake of speed, in both English and Esperanto. In these cases, occasionally a subject might get dropped. That is not to say that it's ok to do it, or even that it's correct colloquial style to do it! It is not.

In any case, even in rapid, colloquial speech, Esperanto is very strict about when the subject may possibly get dropped. So particularly in a forum with a lot of beginners present, I would not recommend dropping the subject under any circumstances. When you become fluent, fluent enough to be having, for example, a rapid, shouted conversation with someone outside a car window at a traffic light, then you will probably naturally lose a few subjects.

dimichxp (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-17 03:09:01

erinja:
dimichxp:
Rogir:I consider that citation an argument against leaving the subject away, at least in written texts.
Is it so hard to admit your own mistake? I have proved my point in a thousand ways, what else do you need?
I don't see that Rogir made a mistake. I think you misunderstood the meaning of what PMEG was saying.
You wish.
erinja:
Leaving off subjects is not grammatically correct, period.
It's correct, damnit. There is no strict rule on it.
In English it is forbidden to drop the subject, and in Esperanto, it is also forbidden.
It's not forbidden in Esperanto. In common cases such as answering to a ĉu-question or imperative mood it's used everywhere. Not sometimes. It's hard to see the other cases of dropping a subject because it's just impractical - it makes semantic confusion while being grammatically correct. But if idea is so simple there is no confusion and it's possible to drop subject. It's correct (grammatically), just style-biased. It's widely used in written form when expressing dialogs. Did you read any book in Esperanto?
Anyway, again, i'm not advocating dropping a subject. Let's say it all again.

1. My first (correct) point was: "If one would say 'Estas uma.' it can be correctly interpreted as qualifying implied (context-dependend) subject as being 'uma"
2. You said (surely wrong) statement: "Even if there is a noun that is IMPLIED but not stated, you still can't use the -a ending to describe it." and gave example "Estas malvarme." thinking that this sentence has implied subject. It really does not, it's subjectless construction.
3. I gave two examples with implied subject and subjectless construction.
4. Rogir said that i can never imply subject. He even said never two times.
5. I tried (seems to be in vain) to show that's not true, it's correct to imply the subject. Grammatically correct, not stylish.
6. ktp
Now please show me correct statement that's not mine, and incorrect statement that's mine.
erinja:
When you become fluent, fluent enough to be having,
When people start thinki... Ah, forget it.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-17 08:18:05

In this case, I think Dimicĥp wins on the basis of "who cares?" There seems to be no rule saying Dimicĥp is wrong, only ones that seem to be advising against the usage, especially in situations where it's just plain ambiguous. From my interpretation of the rules, the kind of subject that can really be omitted is only ĝi/tio/tiu when everything is known by context. Basically the rules permit it, everything else is left to interpretation. Stereotypical Germanic speakers are going to get stroppy if you leave out pronouns, because we tend to avoid that ourselves. A stereotypical Russian speaker might get stroppy if you leave out anything other than "ĝi" because apart from "it" they use all of their pronouns all the time. Some Romance speakers and some Slavic speakers may be divided on the issue, as might be some Semitic speakers. A Japanese speaker may have no problems dropping out whole subjects, but might see it as being an influence on Esperanto from their native language. A dude from Africa speaking, say, Swahili probably won't give a rats buttocks about it all considering EO would look strange enough either way.
To me, imposing that the subject must always be there otherwise the sentence takes an adverb looks as if some English speaker has overthought the rules and then made it a standard for generations to come. And Zamenhoff wouldna of cared if it was still understandable.

nshepperd (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-17 10:40:32

Estas forlasita. rido.gif
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I was going to post a proper response here, but in the process I thought of something funny lango.gif)

Reen al la supro