Mesaĝoj: 24
Lingvo: English
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-13 14:14:58
Vilinilo:"Each book sold over a million copies."I would regard Ĉiu libro vendiĝis pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj as an anglismo myself, although in context it should be understood easily enough. You could put en before pli: Ĉiu libro vendiĝis en pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj. Another possibility would be Oni vendis pli ol milionon da ekzempleroj de ĉiu libro.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-13 16:05:31
niko-tina:Here's my attempt: Ĉiu libro vendiĝis plie ol miliono da ekzempleroj. Would it still be fine?Plie means "in addition", so that wouldn't work here. If you want to use -e, theoretically you might try Ĉiu libro vendiĝis pli ol milione da ekzempleroj, but I'm not sure that would be as clear as the others.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-13 23:28:00
The "pli ol miliono" part is actually the subject of this sentence. This word order sounds better because it makes the subject clear, so it is easier to understand the meaning.
horsto (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-14 20:43:43
erinja:If you have your heart set on using -iĝ-, you could say "Pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj de ĉiu libro vendiĝis"You could also use the passive voice:
Ĉiu libro estas vendita pli ol milionfoje.
erinja:For english speaking people?
The "pli ol miliono" part is actually the subject of this sentence. This word order sounds better because it makes the subject clear, so it is easier to understand the meaning.
:Ni amas nin.Does this not clearly mean:
Ni (mi kaj la alia(j)) amas nin (min kaj la alia(j)n).
Everbody loves himself and the other(s).
Perhaps to be able to love somebody else you have to love yourself, too. Then this would be the normal way to express "we love each other".
If you only want to express that you love the other person(s), then:
Ni amas unu la alian.
or
Ni reciproke amas nin.
If you want to say that everbody only loves himself, then you should say:
Ĉiuj (el ni) amas nur sin mem.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-14 23:19:15
horsto:Yes, that is also a good way of putting it.erinja:If you have your heart set on using -iĝ-, you could say "Pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj de ĉiu libro vendiĝis"You could also use the passive voice:
Ĉiu libro estas vendita pli ol milionfoje.
I am English-speaking and it's clearer to me. But at the same time, I think I am pretty well-read in Esperanto, and I like to think that I am not so biased that I am always looking to an English-style word order for clarity. So, in my opinion, it is clearer. But maybe some well-read Esperantist from another language background can give their opinion.erinja:The "pli ol miliono" part is actually the subject of this sentence. This word order sounds better because it makes the subject clear, so it is easier to understand the meaning.For english speaking people?
For what it's worth, this is my reasoning on the clarity issue in this particular case:
Esperanto has flexible word order but the default choice is usually subject-verb-object. Therefore, in cases where the sentence could possibly be unclear, in my opinion, it is best to stick to the subject-verb-object order. When there is no object and the sentence is complicated, to me, it is clearer to put the subject at the very front of the sentence. That emphasizes that this very complicated statement is actually the subject. It allows the reader to understand quickly without parsing through the grammar and looking for -n's.
In "Pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj de ĉiu libro vendiĝis", we have put the subject first, the verb second, and there is no object, so there's nothing after the verb.
In my mind, keeping the verb at the end is the thing that preserves the clarity of the sentence. I think the rest can be rearranged without hurting the clarity. For example, you could say "De ĉiu libro, pli ol miliono da ekzempleroj vendiĝis". To me that is equally clear.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 09:12:31
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 10:28:27
niko-tina:Well of course, what I meant though was as long as the verb seperates the different parts of the sentence. E.g. "Al la urbo Renegato iru", it's hard to tell whether the city is called Renegade (Renegade City... sounds coolceigered:I think, in terms of word-order, the least ambiguous order would be one where the verb is in the middle, due to the fact that EO lacks the rigidness of cases or whatnot for people to easily differentiate complex subjects and objects (and indirect objects etc) if they are right next to each other.Right, but in the middle of what? As Erinja already explained, if you are to follow the subject-verb-object order, an you have no object, remains clearer if you keep the verb at the end.
), or whether the person (maybe a soldier's code name) is Renegade. In "Renegato iru al la urbo", we know what's doing what in the sentence, as we would in "Al la urbo iru Renegato".So the verb should tend to stick in the middle when certain other elements in the sentence could be confused with each other's meanings.
Sorry if I did not say that properly in my other message
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 14:15:42
In other cases however the adjectival agreement allows this (I guess that's the main reason it exists, actually!):
amas viro bela virinon
amas viro belan virinon
In both cases it is clear who loves whom, and who of both is beautiful
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 14:20:18
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2010-januaro-15 20:10:26
niko-tina:... they start speaking badly and some years later, guess what! the Royal Academy accepts this nonsense as if it was fine.English has the same issue, but we have no Academy. However, dictionaries start to list previously "wrong" definitions of words as correct, and that bothers me. I guess you and I are both conservative about language change!
Sorry for that burst of anger, but that attitude has become really annoying and I need a shoulder on which to cry.
I acknowledge that it happens and that it has been happening since time immemorial, but that doesn't mean I have to like it
