Messages : 99
Langue: English
ceigered (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 16:50:25
darkweasel:Well, it's still been eroded, just not so much in German as in other Germanic languagesceigered:Not really. The German "Konjunktiv" is something extremely similar to the Esperanto conditional, and it's still in use although many speakers don't use it often on non-modal verbs and prefer to use würde or täte (analogously to English would). That's probably because in regular verbs, the conjunctive form is the same as the imperfect form.
While in the Germanic languages, the conditional has been eroded away
English has preserved this form only in should and could.
(Okay, I know I'm off-topic, sorry for that.)
(of course, they all have changed differently, like the English example with "should" and "would", where as North Germanic languages tend to have cognates to only "should" (and "vil-" has preserved its meaning of "want") and thus they deal with things entirely differently again).I also apologise for going off topic...
angel32163 (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 17:16:48
Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon; ĝi estas rompita.
horsto (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 18:17:20
angel32163:So...how would you interpret this:In this case you should use a simple volativo:
Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon; ĝi estas rompita.
Ne sidigu vin sur tiun seĝon...
or
Ne sidiĝu sur tiu seĝo...
I would understand Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon as: You wouldn't have to ...
Donniedillon (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 18:20:24
angel32163:So...how would you interpret this:I would translate it as:
Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon; ĝi estas rompita.
You should not sit on that chair; it's broken.
Personally if it were quite imperative that the chair not be sat on I would use devegus or simply say ne sidu sur tiun seĝon...
johmue (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 21:05:43
angel32163:So...how would you interpret this:This doesn't make sense to me.
Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon; ĝi estas rompita.
I would translate this to English that way: You would not be supposed to sit on this chair; it's broken.
I would say: Vi ne devus sidi sur tiu ĉi seĝo, se ĝi estus rompita.
In English: You would not be supposed to sit on this chair if it was broken.
For the meaning you probably had in mind I'd say: Vi ne sidu sur tiu seĝo; ĝi estas rompita.
BTW: either say "sidi sur seĝO" or "sidiĜI sur seĝoN" and be aware of the slight difference in the meaning of the two.
Johannes
erinja (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 21:10:44
(sidi = sit continuously, sidiĝi = to sit down, having previously not been sitting, sidigi = to sit someone else down)
johmue (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 21:14:48
horsto:I would understand Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon as: You wouldn't have to ...That's indeed an interesting point: What does "devi ne" mean as opposed to "ne devi".
Vi ne devas sidi sur tiu seĝo.
You do not have to sit on this chair.
Vi devas ne sidi sur tiu seĝo.
You must not sit on this chair.
But PMEG says that both variants "devas ne" as well as "ne devas" mean "must not". That's not logical but according to PMEG fact.
Johannes
johmue (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 21:20:43
erinja:"Devus" is used so commonly to get a meaning like "should" in English, so I'd translate it as a straight off "You shouldn't sit"I must say that I disagree.
As I said I would translate "vi devus" as "you would have to". "You should do" I would say like "vi faru"
Maybe that's something to discuss during SES. Is anyone of you guys coming?
Johannes
Miland (Voir le profil) 28 juin 2010 22:11:03
angel32163:So...how would you interpret this: Vi ne devus sidi sur tiun seĝon; ĝi estas rompita."You should not sit on that seat; it is broken."
erinja (Voir le profil) 29 juin 2010 04:02:13
johmue:I don't mean to be rude but if I read your profile right, you're not a native English speaker and it seems that perhaps you are not totally clear on how we use "should" in English.erinja:"Devus" is used so commonly to get a meaning like "should" in English, so I'd translate it as a straight off "You shouldn't sit"I must say that I disagree.
As I said I would translate "vi devus" as "you would have to". "You should do" I would say like "vi faru"
Regardless of how you feel like translating these "devus" expressions, with which exact words, I have found that "devus" espressions are used by Esperanto speakers in pretty much the same situations when native English speakers usually use "should". That is, Esperanto speakers of any native language at all.
In some cases, "devus" is certainly used with a sense of "should have to be", but if you look through classic Esperanto texts at tekstaro.com, you'll find plenty of instances where "should" is the obvious translation of "devus", and not "would have to"
One clue is that -us verbs are very often found with "se", because when we are talking about conditions, there is often an "if" somewhere in there. "Mi kurus" ("I would run"), for example, might be accompanied by "...se la vetero estus bona" (if the weather were good)
One example of many from tekstaro.com:
"La mensoguloj ne devus havi ilin" - the obvious translation is "The liars shouldn't have them". A translation of "The liars wouldn't have to have them" doesn't make all that much sense.
PMEG has a page describing povus, devus, and volus, which explains that these verbs behave somewhat differently than other -us verbs, so that they can almost be considered special cases with specific meanings.
In my own personal usage, a -u form version of these expressions is stronger than the "devus" form. That is, "Li ne venu" (he shouldn't come) is more forceful in my personal usage than "Li ne devus veni"
"Being colloquial in Esperanto" by David K. Jordan translates "devus" as "ought to", which is a far cry from "would have to", and is fairly close to "should" (and indeed, a number of the sample sentences in the "devus" section are translated using "should").