訊息: 187
語言: English
Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月26日下午6:15:47
sudanglo:In 'Mi atendis ĝis li manĝis la supon', the temporal reference is in a sense already future - relative to atendi. Would I say Mi atendis ĝis li manĝos la supon, if I meant 'I waited until he had eaten the soup'?It depends on whether you meant to say "I intended to wait till he would finish the soup", Mi intencis atendi (kaj do, atentis) ĝis li finos la supon, or "I waited till he did indeed finish the soup", Mi atendis ĝis li (ja) finis la supon. So in my view it is a question of translating "would" and "did" in reported speech.
sudanglo:Is it really so poor if I said Atendu, ĝis mi finis la supon..I believe I tried something similar when I used ili pekadu ĝis ili falis in my translation, but I'm not sure now about its rightness. Can you find any examples of this kind of usage in the literature?
You may delighted to know that I might say Atendu ĝis mi estos fininta la supon. But more likely I would say Atendu ĝis mi finos la supon.
ceigered (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月26日下午6:19:59
sudanglo:Mi rimarkis ke li manĝis la suponTypo fixed
Mi rimarkis ke li manĝas la supon
Mi rimarkis ke li manĝos la supon.
On what you've written, I agree with what you've said about ĝis (if I've read it correctly). In fact, it seems in many cases the future tense needs to be structured around both the verb's ending but also conjunctions that are used.If everyone's patient with my thought process here, it seems as if:
Ĝis - 1st phrase is relative to 2nd phrase (subordinated phrase)
Ke - 2nd phrase (subordinated(?) phrase) is relative to 1st phrase.
Also with "atendi ĝis (_____)", what exactly is being waited for means that past/present/future distinctions are important. So I'd agree with "atendu ĝis mi finis la supon", since with "atendu ĝis mi finos la supon", it sounds like you're asking them to wait for no time at all (since they only have to wait until any time before you do an action).
Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月26日下午6:47:04
ceigered:.. I'd agree with "atendu ĝis mi finis la supon"..PMEG says, and I translate:
"Occasionally we see IS-forms used to show something which will be fulfilled in the future. That is an error. We should use the OS-form, or, if we wish to be very accurate, estos ... inta. Therefore, we should not say: Mi venos al vi, kiam mi *finis* mian taskon. We should say: Mi venos al vi, kiam mi finos mian taskon. Or: Mi venos al vi, kiam mi estos fininta mian taskon."
Now, if you maintain that atendu ĝis mi finis la supon is right, can you find any examples from the literature to back you up?
sudanglo (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日上午10:12:25
Perhaps Tom could help us here, if he is following the thread.
Yes, Miland, you know my position on the complex forms - that they shouldn't be sweepingly dismissed in favour of simple forms.
What is certain, is that there are two distinct uses of the verbal finaĵoj - the absolute and the relative. This is well documented in PAG, and anyway the relative usage is commonly encountered in speech, anytime somebody reports on what somebody said.
So, setting aside for the moment whether we can find relative usage outside the classic instances, a counter argument to Bertilo's position would be whether Atendu ĝis mi manĝis la supon can be considered a natural extension of relative usage.
Probably I, personally, would use a complex form to make my meaning clear, but those who are fans of maximum usage of simple forms might well consider 'Ĉu vi bonvolos atendi ĝis mi manĝis la supon' legitimate.
sudanglo (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日上午10:26:15
Wouldn't there be a difference in the time the bomb goes off between:
Atendu ĝis la Prezidento manĝos la supon,
Atendu ĝis la Prezidento manĝis la supon.
In which case would the doomed Prezidento get a chance to finish his soup?
Of course, complex forms allow the time of detonation to be clear.
Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日上午10:46:26
sudanglo:Atendu ĝis la Prezidento manĝis la supon.It could be that because "he has finished" can be translated li finis, the use of this form for a future completed action is an anglismo, or thinking in other languages that use a similar idiom.
ceigered (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日上午11:33:12
Miland:I wonder though, just like how if words are sufficiently used in the international community, there's a case to use them in Esperanto, if the same applies to these very obscure grammatical discussions? How do other languages do these things?sudanglo:Atendu ĝis la Prezidento manĝis la supon.It could be that because "he has finished" can be translated li finis, the use of this form for a future completed action is an anglismo, or thinking in other languages that use a similar idiom.
UUano (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日下午1:33:35
ceigered:How do other languages do these things?Since I'm most familiar with German and French, I'll stick to those.
First, the easy part: German does this the same way that English does, but with different word order. So it would be, "Warte, bis der Präsident die Suppe gegessen hat" [Wait until the President the soup eaten has]. I think other Teutonic languages may behave similarly.
In French, there is a tense called the futur antérieur, which is used for this type of phrase. "Attendez jusqu'à ce que le Président aura mangé la soupe." [Wait until the President i]will have eaten[/i] the soup]. It wouldn't make sense to me in French to use the past tense "has eaten" in this case, because that fact has not yet been completed; therefore I would use the "future past" to show that the action has not yet begun, but will be finished before some other action should take place. I believe that other Romance languages may work this way, and since those are the ones with which I am most intimately familiar (aside from English), it is hard for me to grasp what it "correct" in Esperanto.
"Atendu ĝis li manĝis" sounds confusing to me, and "atendu ĝis li estos manĝinta" feels better...but if we aim to use simple tenses more often, I am at a lost as to which one is most "correct" here.
But I'm still new at this Esperanto grammar stuff.
sudanglo (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日下午5:26:59
The problem is those who argue for a blanket avoidance of the complex forms of the verb, as though they were always bad style.
The bomb-timing problem shows that the PMEG comment on the use of a simple future and condemning a simple past leaves questions unanswered.
I was trying to explore the issue taking the side of the simple form camp.
I think that those who can't abide the complex forms are forced to go against the simple future here or risk the bomb not going off at the right time.
darkweasel (顯示個人資料) 2011年3月27日下午5:34:09
sudanglo:in the same way that you have shown us in French and German using a complex form.... just that in German gegessen hat is a simple past tense form (it is not equivalent to the English-language present perfect tense, nor to estos manĝinta).