Chainy:"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?

To me this isn't so strange, the "running into the house" could just be less of a literal thing and more a description of his intent or the extended process of running up to the house with the eventual aim of going into it. In that respect I can agree that the first sentence is strange but not necessarily the other two. I would read them as follows:

Mi vidis lin kuri en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw him run into the house, but he fell and didn't enter the house.

Mi vidis lin kuranta en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw that he was running into the house, but he fell and didn't enter the house.

Mi vidis lin kurantan en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw him when he was running into the house (and not at some other time), but he fell and didn't enter the house.

By using the participle I would say we allude to a more ongoing or developing situation which makes it less subject to a literal interpretation and open to the more figurative idea I presented above. Whether this was Kin Miner's thinking I don't know, but it works for me.

In the 3rd phrase above I would say that's an example of the sense of "eble tamen n-finaĵo" from PMEG.

tommjames:Mi vidis lin kuri en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw him run into the house, but he fell and didn't enter the house.

Mi vidis lin kuranta en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw that he was running into the house, but he fell and didn't enter the house.

Mi vidis lin kurantan en la domon, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon. - I saw him when he was running into the house (and not at some other time), but he fell and didn't enter the house.

I know that you are also a native speaker of English, Tommjames, but I just can't agree with these English sentences that you have written.

Ok, so I can perhaps imagine such a scenario: You're looking out of the window and you see a man on the street. It starts raining and the man starts 'running into his house'. So perhaps, even if you don't see him enter the house, then you could maybe say that you 'saw him running into his house' as this is a rather reasonable guess as to what his intention was! And you have no particular reason to believe that he didn't accomplish this!

But in a sentence where you then state that he fell over and so didn't enter the house, this makes the first part of the sentence 'I saw him running into the house' completely wrong in my view. It's a contradiction within one sentence! You would have to say 'I saw him running towards the house, but he fell over and so didn't enter the house' - this sounds a lot more natural to me.

I think the same reasoning can be applied in Esperanto. So, I would rather say "Mi vidis lin kuranta(N) al la domo, sed li falis kaj ne eniris la domon".

Chainy:'I saw him running into the house' completely wrong in my view. It's a contradiction within one sentence!

It's certainly a contradaction if we're speaking literally. But as you yourself demonstrated, "running into his house" can be a valid idea even if we know nothing about whether or not he actually got into the house. So if it's valid when we don't know if it's literally true, I'd say it's also valid if we know it's not literally true. And of course if we just take it as a statement of intent it's true in any event since tripping over was something that happened by accident.

tommjames:

Chainy:'I saw him running into the house' completely wrong in my view. It's a contradiction within one sentence!

It's certainly a contradaction if we're speaking literally. But as you yourself demonstrated, "running into his house" can be a valid idea even if we know nothing about whether or not he actually got into the house. So if it's valid when we don't know if it's literally true, I'd say it's also valid if we know it's not literally true. And of course if we just take it as a statement of intent it's true in any event since tripping over was something that happened by accident.

I know what you're getting at, but I think it's a question of style and good language use.

Ok, so perhaps you could see the sense in the sentence "I saw him running into the house, but he fell over and didn't enter it" But, for me, this is not good style as when a listener hears the first part of the sentence he/she probably quickly jumps to the conclusion that the man made it into the house (due to the 'INTO the house'), but then the second part of the sentence jumps at the listener and confronts him/her with the opposite meaning! This is an uncomfortable and slightly irritating way to use language, and I would recommend avoiding it!

Chainy:I know what you're getting at, but I think it's a question of style and good language use.

Perhaps, although questionable style is a different thing from being completely wrong and bizarre

My sense is it's not really all that bad. If you look at Esperanto as a whole and probably any language I suspect you'll find a fair degree of similarly figurative usage where the more usual interpretation grates in some way with what was actually intended, and I imagine that's why Miner describes it as "totally normal".

tommjames:CIT]Perhaps, although questionable style is a different thing from being completely wrong and bizarre

To be honest, I was probably trying to be polite when watering down my interpretation of those sentences. "Completely wrong" and "bizarre" are much closer to what I really think!

I think that once the speaker indeed knows that the man didn't make it to the house, then it is wrong to start the sentence with 'I saw the man running into the house', because this is clearly untrue. "Towards the house" is better.

How about a sentence like this:

"I saw a man driving off the edge of a cliff but he didn't fall down the cliff because his wheels got stuck in mud a few metres from the edge"

Now, surely that one sounds utterly ridiculous?! No 'figurative' ideas really help here!

But, as in the sentences about 'running into the house', the second part of the sentence contradicts the first part.

The correct way to say the sentence would be:

"I saw a man driving towards the edge of a cliff but he didn't fall down the cliff as his wheels got stuck in mud a few metres from the edge"

Or you could say "I saw a man who was about to drive off the edge of a cliff..." Something along these lines.

Chainy:I think that once the speaker indeed knows that the man didn't make it to the house, then it is wrong

But he is describing what he saw at that time, which was the boy running with the aim of reaching and entering the house. He didn't know at that time that he (the boy) was going to trip up and ultimately not reach his destination. So I don't see it as a misrepresentation of the facts, just a description of something that was observed.

In his article Ken Miner talks about the telicity of the various phrases he discusses. In this case I would say the acceptability of "running into the house" can be explained in terms of an atelic aspect.

Chainy:"I saw a man driving off the edge of a cliff but he didn't fall down the cliff because his wheels got stuck in mud a few metres from the edge"

Now, surely that one sounds utterly ridiculous?! No 'figurative' ideas really help here!

Well first off this is a different sentence (aswell as being presented in a different language..English) so whatever we can say about it has only limited relevance to what we've been discussing here. Every idea has difference shades of nuance and degrees of acceptability depending on norms and customs of the language. But to answer your question, no, I don't think it's ridiculous at all, because just as "running into the house" can be a description of the intent of the runner rather than a 100% correct literal description of the thing he is doing, so "driving off the edge of a cliff" can be a description of the intent and final goal of the driver and his suicidal driving.

tommjames:But he is describing what he saw at that time, which was the boy running with the aim of reaching and entering the house. He didn't know at that time that he (the boy) was going to trip up and ultimately not reach his destination. So I don't see it as a misrepresentation of the facts, just a description of something that was observed.

Yes, at that time the speaker didn't know that the boy was going to trip up, but the important factor is that at the time of speaking the person knows that the boy did indeed trip up (which prevented him from entering the house) and so the first part of the sentence should be changed to "I saw the boy running towards the house" (Mi vidis la knabon kuranta(N) al la domo)

tommjames:Well first off this is a different sentence (aswell as being presented in a different language..English) so whatever we can say about it has only limited relevance to what we've been discussing here.

It was merely another example in an attempt to demonstrate the weird aspect to the sentences - the sentences about driving off a cliff can be directly compared to those about 'running into a house'. Sometimes, giving alternative examples helps people understand things. I apologize if I am wrong in that assumption!

tommjames:"driving off the edge of a cliff" can be a description of the intent and final goal of the driver and his suicidal driving.

Seems we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. The ultimate question is "Did he drive off the edge of the cliff or not?" - No, he didn't, so it's not possible to say that you 'saw the man driving off the edge of the cliff'! - such a statement has a much more powerful link with its literal meaning than any other posible 'figurative' or 'atelic' aspect. How about the 'common sense' aspect?

Chainy:The ultimate question is "Did he drive off the edge of the cliff or not?"

I don't think that's the ultimate question at all. The question is whether we should limit the sense of "driving off a cliff" strictly to the actual attainment of that goal, or allow it to relate to the general unfolding of the process and the intent behind it. As far as I can see your argument against the semantics of the latter, which to me appear nothing out of the ordinary for either Esperanto or English, is that this would somehow confuse the listener because there is a "much more powerful link to the literal meaning", something which may well be true (not that you've provided any evidence for that) but doesn't amount to any kind of a case against what I am suggesting. For that split second after "..en la domon.." the reader may well be wrongly assuming that we're putting focus on the actual entry to the house, but if you're telling me that upon reading "..sed falis kaj ne eniris.." it's too much of a mental stretch to re-calibrate the context and realise that we were just describing the process more generally, then frankly I think you're underestimating people's intelligence.