ceigered:I was wondering if "I want that written" was more English-idiomatic rather than a common thing in many other languages, and if it might warrant the use of a more explicit phrase.

In German we actually use ich will das schriftlich, where schriftlich best translates to Esperanto as skribe or skriba (there's no difference in German, which is why we tend to get confused about English -ly).

However, the literal translation ich will das geschrieben would also be understood, though it sounds a bit strange.

erinja:But I personally think that it's not that hard to explain to a beginner, the reasoning of why "skribita" doesn't have the -n in "mi volas tion skribita".

And in fact, in this specific case (not in every case that is formatted like this, however), I think that it would be correct to say "Mi volas tion skribitan".

Perhaps there is indeed a difference in meaning between "Mi volas tion skribita" and "Mi volas tion skribitaN"?

As you mentioned, PMEG gives the example of "Vi farbas la domon ruĝaN", which means the same as "Vi farbas tiun domon, kiu jam estas ruĝa" = "You are painting the red house", or "You are painting the house which is already red" (In this sentence it is not clear what colour is being used in the painting!)

If you follow the same logic, then it would seem that "Mi volas tion skribitaN" would mean "Mi volas tion, kiu estas skribita" = "I want that which is written" or perhaps "I want that which has already been written" (jam estas skribita)

PMEG states that "Vi farbas la domon rugxa" means "Vi farbas la domon tiel, ke ĝi fariĝas ruĝa" = "you are painting the house red" (ie.you are using red paint, but we don't know what colour the house is before the painting!)

Again, if you follow this logic, then "Mi volas tion skribita" means "Mi volas, ke tio estu skribita" = I want that to be written.

Chainy:If you follow the same logic, then it would seem that "Mi volas tion skribitaN" would mean "Mi volas tion, kiu estas skribita"

Yes, however the section in PMEG entitled "eble tamen n-finaĵo" suggests it could also mean "Mi volas tion, kiam ĝi estas skribita", that is, I only really want it if it's written. This seems to congrue with the sense we're aiming for so I agree with Erinja that it works as a translation.

tommjames:Incedentally I recently read an article by Ken Miner where he discusses this very example. The page is at Lingva Kritiko http://lingvakritiko.com/2008/03/21/kuri-kuranta...

Oh dear, my head hurts after just reading the first paragraph of that article by Ken Miner! - what with all the 1 is similar to 2, but different to 3 and at times 2 and 3 can mean this and that, and there's always 4. I'll try to find the patience to work it out a bit later!

tommjames:I would interpret "Sally vidis la knabon kuranta" as Sally saw that the boy was running.
..I recently read an article by Ken Miner where he discusses this ..I have to say I find myself disagreeing .. as he seems to be saying that vidis la knabon kuranta and vidis la knabon kurantan have "no detectable difference"..I'd certainly welcome people's comments on that.

In my view you are correct. In Mi vidis la knabon kuranta our attention is on the fact that the boy is running, or if you like the kuranteco of the boy. In Mi vidis la knabon kurantan, on the other hand, our attention is on the boy, at least as much as on the fact that he is running. Thus his kuranteco, at least relative to the first example, is in the background.

Ken Miner may have meant by 'no detectable difference' that the objective ('detectable') appearance would be the same - somebody's attention being directed towards a running boy. Only by getting inside the observer's mind could we tell whether his real attention was predominantly focussed on the boy, or on the fact that he was running.

tommjames:I would interpret "Sally vidis la knabon kuranta" as Sally saw that the boy was running. If it was Sally who was running it would be more usual to use the adverbial participle, so I don't see it as all that confusing in practice.

When you say 'adverbial participle' I take it that you mean 'kurantE'? (sorry, I'm not really into these grammatical terms!). In that case, then I tend to agree with you there. And for me it sounds clearer to put 'kurante' at the beginning of the sentence - "Kurante Sally vidis la knabon" (meaning that it is Sally doing the running!) Although, perhaps this also sounds perfectly ok (and has the same meaning): "Sally vidis kurante la knabon"

Miland:In my view you are correct. In Mi vidis la knabon kuranta our attention is on the fact that the boy is running, or if you like the kuranteco of the boy. In Mi vidis la knabon kurantan, on the other hand, our attention is on the boy, at least as much as on the fact that he is running. Thus his kuranteco, at least relative to the first example, is in the background.

I know what you're getting at here. I kind of like the idea. But how about the difference between "Mi vidis la kurantan knabon" and "Mi vidis la knabon kurantan" - you could also argue that by placing the adjective after the noun, then you are changing the focus of attention (perhaps onto the action of running) - in the same way as you suggest using 'kuranta' does?

Maybe it is indeed best to treat "knabon kurantan" and "knabon kuranta" as pretty much the same thing! After all, the sentences from the Tekstaro as listed by Ken Miner certainly suggest a bit of a muddle in how these two methods are used!

tommjames:Incedentally I recently read an article by Ken Miner where he discusses this very example. The page is at Lingva Kritiko http://lingvakritiko.com/2008/03/21/kuri-kuranta...

One very strange part of this article is the following:

Tiukaze, (11) estus bizara, dum (12) kaj (13) estus tute normalaj:
11) ? Mi vidis lin kuri en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon.
(12) Mi vidis lin kuranta en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon.
(13) Mi vidis lin kurantan en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon.

To be honest, all three seem rather bizarre to me! I think in reality you'd have to say this very differently. Translating 12 and 13 literally sounds very weird "I saw him running into the house, but he fell over and so didn't enter the house" How can you be 'running into a house'?! Does the doorway consist of some kind of long corridor?

Maybe it would be better to say: Mi vidis lin kuranta(N) al la domo, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon.

Chainy:"Mi vidis la knabon kurantan" - you could also argue that by placing the adjective after the noun, then you are changing the focus of attention (perhaps onto the action of running) - in the same way as you suggest using 'kuranta' does?

I would say that the fact that the accusative is used for both links them together and so prevents a disproportionate amount of attention being taken up by knabon. The two words share the accusative 'blanket'. But, as you say, there is a subtle increase of attention towards knabon, enabling us to vary the emphasis, like a good bass/treble control!

darkweasel:In German we actually use ich will das schriftlich, where schriftlich best translates to Esperanto as skribe or skriba (there's no difference in German, which is why we tend to get confused about English -ly).

However, the literal translation ich will das geschrieben would also be understood, though it sounds a bit strange.

Good point, darkweasel! We're all going on about "I want that written", when in fact the more correct way of saying it would be "I want that in writing" (Ich will dass schriftlich), so maybe the best form in Esperanto would indeed be "Mi volas tion skriba"?

Edit: seems "I want that written" was introduced from post 5 as a translation from the Esperanto! And then we all went along with it The threads started off with the correct form "I want it in writing"!