Skip to the content
Reply

Difficulties understanding

by sublimestyle, December 19, 2010

Messages: 15

Language: English

sublimestyle (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 4:56:35 AM

I am having a hard time pinning the exact meaning of a lot of verbs in Esperanto because it seems like they can be translated two different ways.For example, "Li Kuras," can mean "He runs" or "He is running." These two translations seem to have slightly different meanings to me. It seems like it would be confusing if it meant both. Can someone help me?

ceigered (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 5:17:38 AM

sublimestyle:I am having a hard time pinning the exact meaning of a lot of verbs in Esperanto because it seems like they can be translated two different ways.For example, "Li Kuras," can mean "He runs" or "He is running." These two translations seem to have slightly different meanings to me. It seems like it would be confusing if it meant both. Can someone help me?
Just go "meh, they mean the same thing, there's no problem" okulumo.gif

There isn't a strong or well-used distinction in Esperanto of the progressive tense. There is technically "Li estas kuranta", but this looks silly in Esperanto since it means something like "He is in a running state" - it's strangely precise.

So, you'd normally just write "li kuras".
He runs. He's running. Think of it as if you're either a really bad speaker of English and instead of saying "he's running now" say "he runs now", or think of it as if you're a very good speaker of middle English and think "he runeth" okulumo.gif

After all, in middle English you'd probably say something like "God sayeth unto us in this scripture blah blah blah" rather than the more modern "God's saying to use in this scripture blah blah blah" (sorry for the religious comparison, only middle-English-y text I can think of off the top of my head that people know of is the KJV bible...)

Don't think about directly translating the sense of it, since that's sort of impossible. Just think about the general idea. When you say "he's running" you're thinking "he, run, in the present, currently a continuous action (the -ing)". Then you go "ok, in Esperanto, I can do the first three, and the fourth isn't possible in many languages so I won't both translating it". It's not really a necessary distinction in Esperanto anyway.

3rdblade (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 5:56:57 AM

Think of it as simplifying things. Both "I am running" and "I run" describe an action that happens in the present tense, i.e. now. That can mean both habitual actions you do 'these days'; or actions that you are doing right now at this exact moment. Generally in English we use the present simple (he runs) for the former, and the present progressive (he is running) for the latter). In EO you can just use the present simple for both and context will carry your meaning. If you want to use progressive, you can do that too, but usually you don't need to.

Ĉiutage, li kuras.
Every day he runs.

Ho, li estas tie. Li kuras.
Oh, he's (over) there. He's running.

Another example: What's the difference in nuance between "He lives in the city" and "He is living in the city"? Not much*, and nowadays I reckon a lot of native speakers probably use them interchangeably. In EO 'Li loĝas en la urbo' is fine for either.

* "Where are you living?" would probably be asked of someone who seems to move house a lot.

RiotNrrd (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 6:33:02 AM

It does mean both, and in practice it isn't confusing at all. It just feels weird at first, because it's slightly different than we do it in English.

Latin worked exactly the same way (a lot of Esperanto comes directly from Latin). The Roman civilization managed to survive the ambiguity for a thousand years without issue. We can too.

sudanglo (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 11:11:53 AM

It does seem shocking at first that such a vital distinction (to The Engish mind) is not made in the verb. After a while though you just don't seem to notice and using the same form seems quite natural.

And it is not the only example of a verbal distinction which English makes habitually which is glossed over in other languages (like French and Esperanto). Ĉu vi vidis Susan may be either Did you see Susan or Have you seen Susan.

Zamenhof's decision to follow the model of some Continental languages was probably sensible as implementing the distinction we make in English would have produced too many problems for speakers of such languages.

On the other hand, Esperanto makes distinctions which English commonly fails to make explicit.

I met Susan walking up to the Station - was I walking to the Station or Susan?. In Esperanto you are required to make the distinction.

philodice (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 2:40:17 PM

I liked EO first because it simplifies certain word uses. I saw this as elegant, not shocking. It only took me a few minutes to get used to.

Then I realized that I need to understand how my own language works. I sound like a baby when I'm writing anything in Esperanto.

The language itself is both easy and difficult in certain ways. Since I do not like writing below my usual level, I have thrown myself into studying, really trying to learn actively the last week. I am starting to get it, where I appreciate the elegant simplicity again. I am understanding more words and tenses. In my position of being at the beginner level, I'm grateful that at least one distinction was left out. ridulo.gif

sublimestyle (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 3:00:40 PM

Thanks for all comments. They definitely helped.

acdibble (User's profile) December 19, 2010, 11:54:37 PM

If you go on to learn another language now this will help you a lot. Other languages, German for example, also do not have progressive tenses.

ceigered (User's profile) December 20, 2010, 2:18:35 AM

sudanglo:Did you see Susan or Have you seen Susan?
English probably isn't the best language for that distinction mind you, since in English those two mean the same thing thanks to the simple past being so ambiguous lango.gif

Perhaps the French "Voyiez-vous Susan" vs. "Avez-vous vu Susan" is a better example of another semi-lost distinction?

@ Acdibble: Or Afrikaans, if memory serves me correctly that has the simplest tense system of any germanic language, and has something like esperanto where you only really have 3 tenses.

(Stolen mercilessly from Wikiversity)
Die hond eet sy kos. - The dog eats its food.
Die hond het sy kos geëet. - The dog ate its food.
Die hond sal sy kos eet. - The dog will eat its food.

(Then again, there's no STOMPI rule in Esperanto, so be very happy it's simply in EO lango.gif)

sudanglo (User's profile) December 20, 2010, 11:38:20 AM

in English those two mean the same thing thanks to the simple past being ambiguous
Not really Ceiger.

Did you see Susan (I have a specific occasion in the past in mind)

Have you seen Susan (before now, with no temporal reference).

Note: 'I have seen Susan yesterday' not possible in English.

Back to the top