Žinutės: 12
Kalba: English
k1attack (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 12:11:37
I'm not sure how often I should use Esperanto participles like "parolantas" (I'm speaking), "parolontas"(I'm about to speak) and "parolintas" (I have spoken).
Does "Mi parolis" mean JUST "I spoke",
or does it mean "I have spoken", "I was speaking", "I've been speaking", "I had spoken", and "I used to speak" as well as "I spoke"?
darkweasel (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 12:27:29
I see mi manĝintas as very emphasizing the fact that the eating lies in the past and is finished. However, such forms are barely used. Don't try to translate the confusing English tenses by Esperanto tenses that are just as confusing. Stay with -is, -as and -os in 99% of the cases.
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 14:48:51
darkweasel:("I ate", "I have eaten", "I have been eating", you know how difficult that is for English learners?)I doubt it's your intention but it seems like you're singling out English a bit - I mean, I'm pretty sure from high school that German has a pretty ferocious tense system as well by that definition, as would Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and so forth. We Anglo-Celtic speakers might be a bit weird with our love for such seemingly random analytical verb forms but it wouldn't surprise me if half the difficulty was more anti-English procrastination and striving for a non-existant sense of perfection which even native speakers don't possess. No offence to learners of English, I'm not tarring you with the same brush, but the same thing exists in the Anglosphere with "hard" languages like French, German, Japanese, so I'm assuming it happens outside the Anglosphere as well.
That said, you're completely right, you might as well just use only "manĝis" because the human mind is clever enough to figure out the intricacies. Only if you're straying from normal context should you use more complicated constructions. The translations are more or less as follows:
Mi parolis - I spoke - have spoken or have been speaking, etc.
Mi parolintis - I had spoken, I had been speaking. <- this is more for a narrative sense - if you're talking in past tense, e.g. like in a novel, and you want to show that this is even MORE past tense than what you're writing in (e.g. had already happened) then use this one. Only, though, if you really need to, like if it wouldn't make sense at all with just parolis.
erinja (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 15:12:47
Therefore "mi kuris" could mean "I ran", "I was running", "I had run", "I have run", etc, depending on context.
This might seem weird and wrong to you. I can assure you that I'm not just telling you a dumbed down version of the grammar because you're a beginner. This is, in fact, how Esperanto speakers talk and write. So don't sweat the participles, seriously. Just pick the simple verb tense that matches best with what you're looking for.
You will mainly see the participle endings as adjectives or adverbs.
Kuŝante en mia lito, mi manĝis biskvitojn.
Mi vidas la kurantan hundon,
La konstruota domo estos 5-etaĝa.
Take a look at a publication like Libera Folio (www.liberafolio.org) and you'll see how tenses are written. You'll see that it's 99% simple tenses, as darkweasel has already noted.
darkweasel (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 15:52:47
ceigered:In German we don't actually feel any difference between the imperfect tense and perfect tense form. The imperfect tense (as ich aß) is used more in writing, the perfect tense (as ich habe gegessen) more in oral communication.
I doubt it's your intention but it seems like you're singling out English a bit - I mean, I'm pretty sure from high school that German has a pretty ferocious tense system as well by that definition, as would Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and so forth. We Anglo-Celtic speakers might be a bit weird with our love for such seemingly random analytical verb forms but it wouldn't surprise me if half the difficulty was more anti-English procrastination and striving for a non-existant sense of perfection which even native speakers don't possess. No offence to learners of English, I'm not tarring you with the same brush, but the same thing exists in the Anglosphere with "hard" languages like French, German, Japanese, so I'm assuming it happens outside the Anglosphere as well.
That said, we do have a past perfect tense (as ich hatte gegessen) which does have a different meaning, however that's nothing compared to "I ate", "I have eaten", "I have been eating", "I had eaten", "I had been eating", "I was eating". I'm in the sixth year of learning English and our teacher still has to do exercises about these forms with us.
The French distinction between the imperfect and the passé composé can be a bit tricky, yes, but at least they don't have a "continuous aspect" (English "I am eating" as opposed to "I eat"). I don't know about other languages.
erinja: Substantival participles are also common enough, as in komencanto, aŭskultanto, kreinto. Personally I use them even more frequently than adverbial ones.
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 16:08:15
darkweasel:The French distinction between the imperfect and the passé composé can be a bit tricky, yes, but at least they don't have a "continuous aspect" (English "I am eating" as opposed to "I eat"). I don't know about other languages.I see. Even then, I don't think English has a much harder tense system (trying to think as objectively as possible). It's hard to find out though how much the difference in difficulty really is though, since it all depends on things like teachers, study habits, clarity of instruction etc. But with exposure to the language, things start to even out a bit around the board, that might be a critical factor, since many people across the world learn English but don't really all go to English speaking countries - English is just learnt because of the way the world is at the moment, so there's a lack of human interaction.
Starkman (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 16:56:07
Thanks,
Starkman
Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 18:14:39
Starkman:So (if I'm understanding this conversation correctly), there ARE participles AND perfect tenses, but they are usually avoided?The mode of expression in Esperanto is typically more simple and direct than in other languages, such as English with its complex tenses. This is appropriate for an international language. As others have said, complex tenses are not usually necessary.
erinja (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 18:47:20
darkweasel:erinja: Substantival participles are also common enough, as in komencanto, aŭskultanto, kreinto. Personally I use them even more frequently than adverbial ones.Agreed, but the point of my post was that you rarely find them in compound verb forms; estas manĝinta, etc. My point was that you would very, very rarely find a dialogue like:
- Kion vi estas faranta?
-- Mi estas studanta.
- Mi pensis ke vi jam estis studinta ĉi-matene?
--Mi estis studanta, sed mi nun ankoraŭ estas studonta. Ĉi-vespere kiam mi estos fin-studinta, ni povos eliri kune, ĉu bone?
erinja (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. gegužė 6 d. 18:48:56
Starkman:So (if I'm understanding this conversation correctly), there ARE participles AND perfect tenses, but they are usually avoided? Or is the construction of said tenses more creativity within the language than established grammar?There are participles and perfect tenses, and all of the tenses that English has (and more) but we don't use them unless we absolutely have to. Simple tenses are clearer, and sticking to simple tenses is considered to be good style.