Viestejä: 187
Kieli: English
darkweasel (Näytä profiilli) 6. huhtikuuta 2011 19.08.56
tommjames:I would say it's fine too, as in a phrase like "sufiĉe da lumo por vidi" the verb has a subkomprenata subject, even if it's just "oni". PMEG has a number of similar examples which reference the "subject of the infinitive". To me if something is implied it's always possible to state it explicitly and remain grammatically correct.Doesn't PMEG say somewhere that I-verbs can't have an explicit subject?
tommjames (Näytä profiilli) 6. huhtikuuta 2011 19.58.52
Doesn't PMEG say somewhere that I-verbs can't have an explicit subject?Can't say I recall ever seeing that. Be sure to let us know though, should you find it.
sudanglo (Näytä profiilli) 7. huhtikuuta 2011 9.32.26
If you are going to be in Eastbourne this weekend for the British Congress you can challenge John Wells (Prezidanto de la Akademio) to produce a better explanation.
For the moment consider the following case.
Suppose we are talking about the temperature at the surface of some planet and I say 'It's hot enough for water to boil' Would you agree that I can't render this as '*Estas sufiĉe varme por akvo boli'.
If you do then I would argue that for the same reason you couldn't say 'Estis sufiĉa lumo por la malamika armeo nin povi vidi.'
Maybe a discriminatory test might be as to whether you can insert another 'por' in front of the infinitive without changing the meaning. If you can then the sentence is one type, if not then the sentence can not be translated with 'Por X infinitive'.
I couldn't say '*Estis sufiĉe varme por akvo por boli'
Miland (Näytä profiilli) 7. huhtikuuta 2011 14.57.55
sudanglo:Suppose we are talking about the temperature at the surface of some planet and I say 'It's hot enough for water to boil' Would you agree that I can't render this as '*Estas sufiĉe varme por akvo boli'.No, I wouldn't. So the succeeding argument is not a problem for me.
See you at the BK in Eastbourne, if you're there. As I'm attending the mini-post-kongreso, I expect to be absent from lernu! during the next week. Ĝis!
darkweasel (Näytä profiilli) 9. huhtikuuta 2011 8.06.59
tommjames:I-verboj: bazaj regulojDoesn't PMEG say somewhere that I-verbs can't have an explicit subject?Can't say I recall ever seeing that. Be sure to let us know though, should you find it.
I-verbo tamen ne povas havi propran (gramatikan) subjekton. Ne eblas do diri: *mi manĝi*, *la knabino esti* aŭ simile. Plej ofte tamen ekzistas subkomprenata subjekto, senca subjekto.
tommjames (Näytä profiilli) 9. huhtikuuta 2011 9.14.22
darkweasel:Hmm interesting. Assuming that's not just prescriptivism gone mad, I guess it means I was wrong in my assumption that subkomprenataĵoj can always be eksplicitaĵoj.
Whether that makes "sufiĉe da lumo por mi vidi" grammatically wrong though I'm still not 100% convinced. The assumption of an implied subject made explicit on the I-verb is just one way of explaining it, but I think there could be others. For example perhaps..
"sufiĉe da lumo por mi, [por] vidi"
where in addition to the implied (but not explicit) subject there's also an implied "por". That's probably a bit of a stretch though, so I think I can concede that the phrase is at least grammatically questionable.
Miland (Näytä profiilli) 14. huhtikuuta 2011 20.10.33
The original of Patroj kaj Filoj in fact by Turgenev, trabslated into Esperanto by Kabe. So that is probably not an anglismo. For that reason, I would regard such a usage as permissible, albeit marginal.