Starkman:
If someone asks in English, "Are you going to the store?" the answer, "I am" is sufficient. But you're saying it would not be acceptable in Esperanto to answer "Mi estas"?

The reason is the sentence structure of the English question - it has the verb "to be" ("are you ..."). As a result in English this is logical.

In Esperanto you could say mi iras or whatever other verb the other one used. Or simply jes.

The Esperanto-USA Retbutiko sells a book with a red cover, the word Biblio, and a white cross underneath the title, for $31.70. It contains this description;

Div - A totally new edition of this staple of Esperanto (and world) literature. In the main, the book is identical with previous editions; however, the so-called 'Deuterocanonical Books', translated from Greek by Gerrit Berveling, have now been placed in their proper positions in the Old Testament. An unnumbered publication in the series "Oriento-Okcidento". 2006. 1375 p. 210x130. Bound. Czech Republic. ISBN 8085853906.

What is the difference between this edition and La Sankta Biblio that you are talking about?

Starkman:If someone asks in English, "Are you going to the store?" the answer, "I am" is sufficient. But you're saying it would not be acceptable in Esperanto to answer "Mi estas"?

As someone already stated, no, we wouldn't say that. But I'll expand on that a little more, and also respond to the rest of your post.

Answers to a question normally repeat the verb. Since the Esperanto question would be "Ĉu vi iras al la vendejo?", we would expect to see "iras" in the answer. "Jes, mi iras" or "Ne, mi ne iras". The question, as asked in English, has a form of "to be" in it ("Are you..."), so that's why you made this error.

Keeping things in English for a second, if you re-word this store question so that it no longer has a form of "to be" in it, I think you'll find that even an English speaker would no longer answer with "I am".

Let's look at some yes or no questions and answers, in English and Esperanto.
Do you go to the store? - I do.
Is Jennifer eating? - She is.
Are the children there? - They are.
Does Maria come frequently? - She does.

You see how these work? No matter what the main verb of the sentence is (go, eat, be, come), the answer repeats the "question word" at the beginning. In English, yes or no questions begin with forms of "to be" or "to do".

In Esperanto, all yes or no questions are formed with "ĉu". There is no "question verb" to be repeated in the answer; rather, the main verb of the sentence is repeated in the answer. Here are the same sentences as above, in Esperanto:

Ĉu vi iras al la vendejo? - Mi iras.
Ĉu Jennifer manĝas? Ŝi manĝas.
Ĉu la infanoj estas tie? Ili estas.
Ĉu Maria venas ofte? - Ŝi venas ofte

...so the only one answered with a form of "esti" is the one whose verb is a form of "esti".

the simple present indicative of the Greek "to be," harkens back to God's response to Moses' question about what God should be called. God's response to Moses was "I AM" or "I AM that I AM" (Hebrew: "ehyey"))

I don't know Christian beliefs or theology, but "ehyeh" (אהיה, or with vowels אֶהְיֶה) isn't present tense in Hebrew. It's future tense. The statement in Exodus actually means "I will be that I will be". Or, depending on how you translate the word אשר, it could mean "I will be who/what I will be".

It is probably translated as present tense in many bibles because the "will be" form doesn't sound very grammatical in English (or in most languages, or even in Hebrew; this verse is pretty enigmatic in any language).

This said, it seemed to me that Esperanto could also have used the present indicative "mi estas," but apparently this won't work? If that's the case, then, it seems that "ekzistas" doesn't capture the essence of the present indicative of the Greek (or English, for that matter).

This won't really work grammatically.

I mean this in the very nicest possible way but no Esperanto word (Hebrew word, English word, Swahili word) will match the exact nuance of a Greek word. This is lesson number one of translation. You will never, ever, ever, capture the exact nuance of the original text, I don't care whether it's a religious text or the lyrics of a bawdy song. Every language has a set of assumptions and associations that go with each word, and even two words that refer back to each other in the dictionary won't call the exact same nuances and images to mind of the speakers of the two languages.

Even, as you can see, the Greek text that you refer to, it doesn't have the same nuance as the (future tense) Hebrew text that it's referring back to.

So with all due respect, I know that this is your religious text, and that it's important to you to get it right. But you will never get 100% of the original nuance, and at a certain point, you have to say "I did my best" and pick a word. Or else, you can add some more words not found in the original text, to add back some amount of the nuance that you lose when translating a single word with a single word. Relax! All translations miss out on something, which is why people who go to theological seminaries learn the original languages, so they can read the texts that are important to them in the original. Right?

Starkman

If you're just starting out and want to improve your pronounciation of Esperanto, here's a link to a series of Youtube videos with readings from selections to the gospels: Click here.

The guy has a nice Italianish accent too!

Okay, I see now what's going on with regard to the use of the "to be" verb being the issue.

And I'm quite familiar with the fact that no language translates literally, fully or sufficiently from one language to another, but until someone explained what was going on specifically with the "mi ekzistas" translation of John 8:58, I was in the dark as to "why" this and not "mi estas" was the translation. (I'd have been in the dark whether this was a Bible verse or not. I just happened to notice it in the Bible. that's all.)

And lavagulo,

You stated, "The Esperanto-USA Retbutiko sells a book with a red cover, the word Biblio, and a white cross underneath the title, for $31.70. . . . What is the difference between this edition and La Sankta Biblio that you are talking about?

I'm not sure, but I'm going to try to find that Bible and see what's it's all about, since the price is so good. At the moment, I think there's only the one version of the Bible in Esperanto, but the Bible you've noted apparently just rearranged the order of the books. (If you come across a link, post it, if you would, please.)

And thanks Rory for the pronunciation link. Fortunately, my pronunciation is very good (that part comes very easily). I'm just disgusted that I can't read everything one time, have it memorized and be fluent...in two or three days! Ooooh well!

Thanks all,

Starkman

Starkman, here's the link to the book on esperanto-USA's bookstore:
http://esperanto-usa.org/retbutiko/index.php?main_...

I've followed this discussion with interest because I'd also like to obtain a copy of the Bible in Esperanto. It might be a very good way to increase one's knowledge of the language.

Here's one link to the Bible in Esperanto that I have been looking at. If you have a better one, please let me have it.
http://www.jesus.org.uk/bible/Esperanto/38/2

Starkman:And thanks Rory for the pronunciation link. Fortunately, my pronunciation is very good (that part comes very easily). I'm just disgusted that I can't read everything one time, have it memorized and be fluent...in two or three days! Ooooh well!

It's generally like that with language learning - being able to pronounce the word or at least make something that sounds similar is simple in many languages but remembering the words etc is hardest I've found too.

But hey, I guess that's why they say practice makes perfect (even if it is time consuming and boring ).

erinja:I don't know Christian beliefs or theology, but "ehyeh" (אהיה, or with vowels אֶהְיֶה) isn't present tense in Hebrew. It's future tense. The statement in Exodus actually means "I will be that I will be". Or, depending on how you translate the word אשר, it could mean "I will be who/what I will be".

Just a side note. In a lecture by biblic scholar Robert Eisenman he postulated that YHWH (אהיא) was a causitive verb construction meaning roughly "One who causes to be" or something of the sort.
Ever heard of anything like this. I'll try to find the lecture, I think it was in one of his old testement lectures on Youtube.

Thanks very much!

Starkman

lavagulo:Starkman, here's the link to the book on esperanto-USA's bookstore:
http://esperanto-usa.org/retbutiko/index.php?main_...

I've followed this discussion with interest because I'd also like to obtain a copy of the Bible in Esperanto. It might be a very good way to increase one's knowledge of the language.

Here's one link to the Bible in Esperanto that I have been looking at. If you have a better one, please let me have it.
http://www.jesus.org.uk/bible/Esperanto/38/2

Wilhelm:Just a side note. In a lecture by biblic scholar Robert Eisenman he postulated that YHWH (אהיא) was a causitive verb construction meaning roughly "One who causes to be" or something of the sort.
Ever heard of anything like this. I'll try to find the lecture, I think it was in one of his old testement lectures on Youtube.

אהיה is only a verb form, it is not the Hebrew rendering of the name of God, the so-called tetragrammaton (which I think you allude to with your YHWH).

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know anything of this scholor or his theories. But I don't see how it could be a causative verb. When you say causative, I assume you are talking about the binyan hif'il, which comprises causative verbs. But אהיה is simply the first person future tense of להיות, which is a pa'al verb. It's the most common binyan, and its verbs are fairly 'neutral'; active voice, transitive or intransitive.