Ku rupapuro rw'ibirimwo
Kwishura

fari (make) vs fari (do)

ca, kivuye

Ubutumwa 33

ururimi: English

mogul (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 31 Ntwarante 2005 11:43:05

hi, i'm from austria,

in the german language there is also an difference between 'do' and 'make', but i think this is no big problem because you can describe what you definitly mean. just use for make instead of fari 'krei' or 'konstruisti' or something like, but you are right it's a small conflict.

however, good idea.

misinca (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 1 Ndamukiza 2005 17:33:25

Hello, I'm from Spain and in Spanish we only use de verb "hacer"= "fari", I have more problems using do and make ridulo.gif. I want to suggets you to learn Spanish too.

mik0s (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 20 Ndamukiza 2005 18:46:00

im a filipino and in tagalog we also have one word that can mean either to do or to make... in english however, i believe the confusion stems from the fact that "to make" is normally followed by a direct object, a real object... that is "to make something".. while "to do" is usually followed by the verb and used as an emphasizer (much like the french donc), and oftern conjugated as an "auxiliary" as in the phrase: "i do eat fish".... or so i think

paloh (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 8 Rusama 2007 11:49:21

Well, in fact, there are more than one word in Esperanto coresponding to "do" and "make": fari, agi, igi; they just don´t provide you with one-to-one mapping. So you always need to try to understand, which situation is appropriate. I´d say, one just needs to read a lot of good Esperanto.
But anyway, I would not worry about getting them mixed. People will understand. rideto.gif

Pauxlo

mnlg (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 8 Rusama 2007 13:06:38

In Italian there's just one verb, conveniently similar to Esperanto: "fare". When I was learning English my teacher told us that "to make" has a strong concrete connotation; that is, "to make", in general, suggests the creation/building of something that wasn't there before; whereas "to do" is (again, in general) more descriptive, more related to actions or situations.

I am not a native speaker and I might very well be wrong, but when faced with the line "I made it", I would instinctively read it as "I built it", "I constructed it"; in the case of "I did it", I would sense it to be closer to "I succeeded in it", "I experienced it". "Been there, made that" would suggest me that someone (re)built something in a given place. ridulo.gif

I think the Esperanto verb "fari" generally conveys both meanings of "to do" and "to make", but when translating "to make", in some cases you could use "konstrui", "krei".

"igi" by itself is more like "to render", "to transform". The use of "to make" for this in English is, the way I see it, just a convention, what in my language would be called an "auxiliary form". A secondary, structural meaning, on top of its own. I think it should be important to learn to distinguish these two uses and Esperanto undoubtedly helps in this.

Islander (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 8 Rusama 2007 14:30:00

I'm a native french speaker as I agree with mnlg's description. For us, the word is faire. To provide an analogy that points to both definitions, think of an exam. If you're making the exam, you're the teacher and you are designing it, writing the questions. If you're doing the exam, you're a student, answering the questions.

In romance languages (and that includes Esperanto), saying mi faras la ekzamenon without any further clarification can mean any of the 2.

This, however, will not likely bring much confusion since the subject is usually define elsewhere within a converstion or will be known to begin with (e.g. 2 teachers speaking to one another of their respective work plans).

Andybolg (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 8 Rusama 2007 16:15:11

That's not a problem. As a native Norwegian speaker I'm used to seperate them, but it's not a problem. There are enough synonyms in Esperanto to deal with it rideto.gif

Josh (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 8 Rusama 2007 21:24:25

You make do of something?

Anyway. I'm in Latin as well and I noticed facere as make/do, but you translate based on context.

As for a comparison in English:
Take the word "too". In English it can mean "excessively, as well"... those two words have nothing in common... one definition means a lot of something and the other means basically something of the same situation (I did this... as well, too).

So think of it that way perhaps. "Laborem faco." can mean "I am doing work." but not "I am making work." whereas "Portam faco." means "I am making a gate." It's derived from context.

As to why the two opposite words were put into one word I have no clue. Maybe somewhere in studying Etymology, a word that looked like facere or something was the Greek word make, and then somewhere else the word to make looked just like it, and so it was that they meant both definitions... if you can see what I am saying... but I doubt that what I said is true.

-Josh

Paamayim (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 9 Rusama 2007 01:28:36

I'm a native English speaker but I'm in my fifth year of French. At first 'faire' for both 'make' and 'do' was a bit confusing because of the separation of those words in English. After a while you just get used to it and it will come naturally.

My major problem in Esperanto at the moment is when things are direct objects or not. I understand the concept in English, but if you use an object pronoun in English do you use an object pronoun in Esperanto?

He saw me speaking to John
Li vidis mi parolas al John
or
Li vidis min parolas al John?

RiotNrrd (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 9 Rusama 2007 01:51:00

Paamayim:He saw me speaking to John
Li vidis mi parolas al John
or
Li vidis min parolas al John?
I would say "Li vidis min parolantan al John."

Now, I've never used that kind of construction before, so it may very well be incorrect. But my thinking is thus:

"He (li)" is clearly the subject, and what the subject is doing is "seeing (vidis)" something (in the past tense). So far so good.

What he is seeing is me, so "mi" becomes "min", as the direct object.

But what kind of direct object is "min"? In fact, it's an "actively speaking" kind of direct object - an adjective is therefore required (since adjectives answer the question "what kind of x is something?"), and "parolanta" thus fits the bill. Since adjectives need to agree with their nouns, and the noun it modifies is a direct object, it also gets an -n, and becomes "parolantan".

Since I'm speaking to John, the "al John" is a slam dunk.

I'm happy to be corrected, if this is indeed a thoroughly wrong analysis.

Subira ku ntango