This question was posed to me yesterday (it's on a junior high school English test here in Japan). Which is correct?

a.) I stayed with a homestay family last summer. The homestay mother was a teacher and the father was a singer.

b.) I stayed with a homestay family last summer. The homsetay mother is a teacher and the father is a singer.

The former seems correct at first, but the second also seems to be true, if both the mother and father are doing the same jobs when I write the words as when I was staying with them for homestay. I think I know which one's better and why, but I'd like to hear your thoughts, and of course what the correct e-o translation would be. (I guess the latter):

c.) Mi gastis kun hejmgastiga familio dum la pasinta somero. La hejmresta patrino estis instruisto kaj la patro estis kantisto.

d.) Mi gastis kun hejmgastiga familio dum la pasinta somero. La hejmresta patrino estas instruisto kaj la patro estas kantisto

Thanks!

I like "was / estis" better because you're talking about a past event. But since you're only talking about last summer and the parents are almost certainly still a teacher and a singer, "is / estas" works just about as well in this case. If you were talking about a summer trip that happened, say, twenty years ago, "was / estis" becomes obligatory.

Doesn't matter to me, except that if you use "estas" then you're showing that you're either sure of their continued professions, stating something about their character (e.g. not the type o' people to change professions much, a stable family with stable careers?), or you've been in contact with them to confirm it, which might give the reader the impression you're keeping in decent contact when you're not.

Estis though basically would say "this happened in the past, what happens in the future is not relevant or not known, don't bother trying to find a hidden message here" (although I guess in some cases it could be used to imply that for some reason you can't be in contact with this homestay family ).

@ Sādobureido - what was the correct answer for the test?

ceigered:what was the correct answer for the test?

It was 'is' on the test. (Or is that 'it is 'is' on the test, as the test still exists..?) It was noticed by a colleague who works at the junior high school (also an Australian), who thought it might be wrong, and wanted my opinion. My first instinct was that the tenses should agree when you tell a story that happened in the past because it sounds more even, but it's as you guys said; if you want to emphasize the 'isness' (la estas-eco?) of the jobs of the mother and father, then it's not wrong.

And then that got me thinking about how I would say it in e-o... Thanks for the answers!

As it happens, a couple of doors down from me there is a language school (for foreign students learning English). The families that take in these students as paying guests are always referred to as host families.

My feeling about the tense is that the past is the appropiate one in this context.

At the congress last year I met several people who spoke more than 3 languages.

I was a bit lost, but luckily I bumped into someone who could speak English.

ceigered:Doesn't matter to me, except that if you use "estas" then you're showing that you're .. sure of their continued professions..

+1

3rdblade:

ceigered:what was the correct answer for the test?

It was 'is' on the test. (Or is that 'it is 'is' on the test, as the test still exists..?) (...) My first instinct was that the tenses should agree when you tell a story that happened in the past because it sounds more even, but it's as you guys said; if you want to emphasize the 'isness' (la estas-eco?) of the jobs of the mother and father, then it's not wrong.

Ah, so does that mean they still got good marks for A) (was)? It seems like a hard thing to test with those two examples, since neither are wrong, but there's certainly a subtlety there which I'm guessing the test is designed to pick out. Ultimately though I guess it's better they use "was" as a default (if they're not going to be taught how to master the distinction) since there's less chances of making a mistake.

I wonder what Japanese would do generally? (I'm using VERY bad Japanese with G-translate helping here, so forgive me)

"En jaro 2010 Mi kaj mia amiko glaciaĵon manĝis. Ni studentoj estis"

"2011 nen ni watashi to watashi no nakama wa aisukurīmu wo tabemashita. Watashitachi wa gakusei deshita."

But then suppose we're still students, would one say "Watashitachi wa gakusei desu"?

I'm curious since I wonder why the answer was "is" on the test, and if perhaps English speakers are more precise about tense (and perhaps that leaks into our Esperanto?).

I don't feel strongly that there would be any distinction in tense usage between English and Esperanto in this case.

I can imagine a problem in other cases though, since 'estis' can double for 'had been' (past before the past) AND 'was'.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan sinjoron kiu estis Esperantisto (dum liaj studentaj jaroj aŭ je la tempo de la renkontiĝo?)

Both in English and Esperanto, each one of the proposed sayings is correct, but they mean different things.

Option a) means that, at the time you stayed with them, they had that occupations. Nothing is said about whether they still are or no longer are a teacher or a singer.

Option b), on the contrary, states that presently they continue to be a teacher and a singer. Strictly speaking, it is not explicitly stated that they were a teacher and a singer at the time you stayed with them, but it seems fairly certain that they were, otherwise one would be likely to introduce the second sentence with something like "Now, the homestay mother..." / "Nun, la hejmresta patrino..."

Regards,

Daniel

3rdblade:This question was posed to me yesterday (it's on a junior high school English test here in Japan). Which is correct?

a.) I stayed with a homestay family last summer. The homestay mother was a teacher and the father was a singer.

b.) I stayed with a homestay family last summer. The homsetay mother is a teacher and the father is a singer.

The former seems correct at first, but the second also seems to be true, if both the mother and father are doing the same jobs when I write the words as when I was staying with them for homestay. I think I know which one's better and why, but I'd like to hear your thoughts, and of course what the correct e-o translation would be. (I guess the latter):

c.) Mi gastis kun hejmgastiga familio dum la pasinta somero. La hejmresta patrino estis instruisto kaj la patro estis kantisto.

d.) Mi gastis kun hejmgastiga familio dum la pasinta somero. La hejmresta patrino estas instruisto kaj la patro estas kantisto

Thanks!

Though simple tenses are preferred in Esperanto, nothing prevents us from using compound tenses when they add clarity. We can also add other words to better express what we mean.

E.g.:

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan sinjoron kiu tiutempe estis esperantisto.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan sinjoron kiu antaŭe estis esperantisto.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan esperantiston.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan eksesperantiston.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan sinjoron kiu estis estinta esperantisto.

Only in the last example I use a compound tense, yet I think the other four are clear enough using only simple tenses.

In Esperanto, just like in English and Spanish and probably many other languages, one can be more precise or more ambiguous, depending on the context and the extra-linguistic knowledge of the person one is speaking to. Or one may be ambiguous on purpose (lawyers do that all the time when they write contracts and want to be able to interpret them in more than one way in case of eventual conflict.)

Regards,

Daniel

sudanglo:I don't feel strongly that there would be any distinction in tense usage between English and Esperanto in this case.

I can imagine a problem in other cases though, since 'estis' can double for 'had been' (past before the past) AND 'was'.

Mi renkontis tiam maljunan sinjoron kiu estis Esperantisto (dum liaj studentaj jaroj aŭ je la tempo de la renkontiĝo?)