Mesaĝoj: 5
Lingvo: English
kledermans (Montri la profilon) 2007-marto-30 18:19:01
So, if I want to transform the present:
"I know that he is home"
into the past:
"I knew that he was home",
given the model you've all explained to me on my other question, I assume will be:
"Mi sciis ke li estas hejme"
right?
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2007-marto-30 19:07:41
I would interpret "Mi sciis ke li estas hejme" as "I knew that he IS at home." I'm not sure that that kind of mixing of tenses actually makes sense (in English, at any rate).
But I'm just a beginner myself, and am perfectly willing to be corrected.
kledermans (Montri la profilon) 2007-marto-30 19:11:11
RiotNrrd:I would tend to say "Mi sciis ke li estis hejme." Although I'm certainly no expert and am quite possibly wrong.I know that that wouldn't make sense if translated literally but I'm making this guess from what I was told in my last verb-tense question (see thread: "Past in future, future in past", where in fact, I never discussed the usage of past in future situations, but I think I understand them...).
I would interpret "Mi sciis ke li estas hejme" as "I knew that he IS at home." I'm not sure that that kind of mixing of tenses actually makes sense (in English, at any rate).
But I'm just a beginner myself, and am perfectly willing to be corrected.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2007-marto-30 19:11:48
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2007-marto-30 19:24:58
erinja:I don't know if this counts as reported speech in the classical sense, so I don't know if the Esperanto reported speech rules actually apply to it.That what I was thinking. If it were something like "She said that he was at home", I would translate as "Ŝi diris ke li estas hejme." In this case you are reporting what she said. But in the case of knowing... I think that's a little different (although I actually can't quite put my finger on why).