メッセージ: 13
言語: English
Seth442 (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月19日 21:21:24
In Esperanto, should I say "Dankon por vi skribanta" or should I say "Dankon por vi skribis" or are those both wrong?
I was told I can say "Dankon por la mesagxo," but this doesn't really solve my misunderstanding of proper grammar in Esperanto.
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月19日 23:11:42
In terms of grammar you are thanking someone for a substantive (letero or mesaĝo). Dankon means 'thanks' which is short for 'I give you thanks', but of course we don't need 'I give you' in English, nor do we need Mi donas al vi in Esperanto. We do, however have the accusative ending -n since the thanks are a direct object. For this reason we say Saluton! or Bonan matenon! to other Esperantists.
You could however say Mi dankas vin pro.., "I thank you for..".
The examples you give are wrong. In the first one, skribanta is a participial adjective which cannot be used as a noun in the way that the word "writing" can in English. The second needs a little expansion to Dankon por tio, ke vi skribis. In speaking, you might get away with Dankon, ke vi skribis.
Chainy (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月19日 23:23:40
Miland:You could say Dankon pro (or por) via (or simply la) letero (or mesaĝo).That sounds good to me. Or you could say "Dankon, ke vi skribis al mi."
Seth442 (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月19日 23:52:28
When I write "Thank you for writing" in English, I am thanking the writer for an action rather than the result of their action. It seems there are many easy ways to thank someone for the result of their writing, but I'd like to figure out how to thank them for the act of writing.
In the phrase "Dankon por tio, ke vi skribis" does "tio" refer to the thing that was written (the message), or does it refer to the act of writing?
"Dankon, ke vi skribis al me" seems maybe the most in line with what I was trying to say.
My best interpretation would be "Thank you, that you wrote to me" or maybe "Thank you, for having written to me."
Learning Esperanto has really been showing me how poor my understanding of grammar is, even in English.
NiteMirror (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月20日 6:03:48
Seth442:In English, if someone were to write me a message, I might respond and say "Thank you for writing."In a letter I wrote recently, I used "Dankon por skribado al mi." I'll also freely admit I still feel like I'm at the beginner level here with the language, so ... not sure how good of a suggestion that is.
In Esperanto, should I say "Dankon por vi skribanta" or should I say "Dankon por vi skribis" or are those both wrong?
I was told I can say "Dankon por la mesagxo," but this doesn't really solve my misunderstanding of proper grammar in Esperanto.
Chainy (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月20日 10:14:09
Seth442:In the phrase "Dankon por tio, ke vi skribis" does "tio" refer to the thing that was written (the message), or does it refer to the act of writing?This refers to the act of writing, so it's the one you need here...
"Dankon pro (or 'por') tio, ke vi skribis al mi" is a more formal way of saying "Dankon, ke vi skribis al mi". In this latter version 'pro/por tio' is understood without it actually being said. I would tend to add 'al mi' just to make it clearer what we are talking about.
Note: You can't say "Dankon por vi skribis al mi" or anything like that... As far as I'm aware, the verb can't come after 'por' or 'pro' in such a sentence. You have to use 'ke' instead when introducing a verb.
So this is correct: "Dankon, ke vi skribis al mi" (and don't forget the comma there!)
You only use 'por' or 'pro' when they're followed by a noun or pronoun:
"Dankon pro/por via mesagxo" - Thank you for your message.
We need to try to avoid translating things directly from the English. "Dankon por vi skribanta' is not too good in Esperanto, it sounds pretty weird. You can't say 'vi skribanta' in any context... It's possible to say 'Vi estas skribanta', but this means 'You are writing' in the sense that the action is being done right now, in the very moment that the person says the sentence. For example - "Mi vidas, ke li nun estas skribanta leteron" - I can see that he is writing a letter now (right in this moment). But, to be honest, this is a complicated way of saying "Mi vidas, ke li nun skribas leteron" - this has the same meaning.
horsto (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月20日 12:05:55
Seth442:Why is it important in this case to distinguish between action and result? What's the difference between:
When I write "Thank you for writing" in English, I am thanking the writer for an action rather than the result of their action. It seems there are many easy ways to thank someone for the result of their writing, but I'd like to figure out how to thank them for the act of writing.
Thank you for writing.
and
Thanks for your letter.
ceigered (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月20日 14:30:10
Note the meanings of the individual words:
skribo = a piece of writing. Could be a sonnet, a movie script, an article for a magazine.
skribado = an action with continued writing (a habitual action, or a whole action, or a not yet completed action - either way, this has something to do with duration (be it 3 minutes or 20 years), as that's what "ado" (adi) means).
skribago = act of writing
It's all those little nuances which aren't really 100% important, but just keep aware of them, and the right choice should be clear or easy to make (I personally would go with "Dankon pro via letero/mesaĝo", but there's no real penalty for doing any other choice).
Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2010年6月21日 19:58:50
gyrus:I'd say "Dankon, ke vi skribis al mi" would be wrong..I'd say "Dankon pro vi skribis al mi".Ke in the first example means "that" as in "on account of the fact, that". The latter phrase is translated pro tio, ke. That is why it is a common short form, and not wrong.
The second is wrong because, as these examples from PMEG show, pro needs to refer to a substantive, not a statement.