Į turinį
Atsakyti

Averbs

sublimestyle, 2011 m. vasaris 12 d.

Žinutės: 12

Kalba: English

sublimestyle (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 00:07:46

I am having some difficulties with adverb placement. I read somewhere that adverbs usually precede, but may also follow, the word or words it modifies. Then it was noted that one should be careful of the placement because you could have a sentence like "Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun, which could either mean "I alomost wished to have that" or I wished almost to have that." I was wondering if situations occur like this often, and how one should avoid them, and also how to say both sentences without ambiguity.

Chainy (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 00:16:25

sublimestyle: Then it was noted that one should be careful of the placement because you could have a sentence like "Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun, which could either mean "I alomost wished to have that" or I wished almost to have that."
It's a slightly strange sentence when you say 'I almost wanted to have that', but anyway if you really want to translate this directly, then it would be 'Mi preskaŭ volis havi tion'. And yes, it's important that you put the 'preskaŭ' in that position before the thing that it modifies, ie before 'volis'. So, really it's the same as in the English sentence in this case.

What exactly do you mean by 'I wished to almost have that'?! I think this is such a strange thing to say, that even if you botch the word order, then people might assume you were actually trying to say something else.

Chainy (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 00:19:36

A good example of the importance of the placement of the adverb:

Mi tute ne komprenas = I don't understand at all.

Mi ne tute komprenas = I don't fully understand.

Echo49 (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 02:32:26

The same problem with adverb placement can happen in English too, for example:

Children who cry often are smart.

This sentence is ambiguous because it's not clear which verb "often" applies to. It can mean both:

Children who often cry are smart. (Children who cry often / are smart)
Children who cry are often smart. (Children who cry / often are smart)

Notice how just by changing the position of "often" the meaning can be clarified.

sublimestyle (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 19:14:04

I got the sentences from a book on Esperanto grammar by Ivy kellerman that I was working through a while ago. I know the sentences sound a bit strange, but those where the only examples that were given for this concept of adverb placement.
In the book it said that "preskaŭ" could either modify "volis" or "havi" in the sentence

"Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun."

This would cause the sentence to have the meaning "I wished to almost have that" or "I almost wished to have that."

I guess the real question I have is does anyone ever put an adverb following the word or words it modifies,or should you always have the adverb preceding the word or words it modifies?

If you always have the adverb preceding the word it modifies, then would

"Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun" mean "I wished to almost have that." I am sure you would probably need the context of the situation or the listener would probably think you botched the sentence because it is rather strange way of wording something.

For a situation in which you would use the sentence "I wished to almost have that" I will use a lottery example. Say I am trying to almost win the lottery. I need to get 8 numbers right. I want to get all the numbers right except the last one for some weird reason. So in this situation the sentence "I wished almost to have that" the "that" would mean all the numbers correct to win the lottery. I know this is stupid example, and who the heck would ever want to almost win the lottery?

So if your the listener, and you know this situation would you think I meant "I wished to almost have that" when I said "Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun"

Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 20:01:57

In simple sentences where there is no risk of ambiguity, it is fine to put an adverb after a verb that it qualifies, e.g. "He speaks wisely" can be Li parolas saĝe. In more complex sentences, where it is necessary to be more careful to avoid ambiguity, it may be better to put an adverb before the verb that it qualifies. Thus "I almost wished to have it" would be Mi preskaŭ volis havi ĝin.

danielcg (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 12 d. 22:25:41

Other men often envy me, when I tell them I am 53 and I almost make love every day.

They don't realize that I almost make love on Mondays, I almost make love on Tuesday, I almost make love on Wednesday, and so on.

Do you see the difference between "I almost make love every day" and "I make love almost every day"?

Well, the same happens in Esperanto. Though word order is more free than in English and Spanish (and probably more than in other languages, but I just know these two), word order still can help us interpret correctly the sentences.

In case there may be some ambiguity (unless, of course, it is intended on purpose like in the above joke), one should place the adverb before the adjective or verb it is modifying.

So:

"Mi preskaŭ seksumas ĉiutage" = I almost make love every day (but frustratingly I never get to really make love).

"Mi seksumas preskaŭ ĉiutage" = I make love almost every day (I take a rest only from time to time).

Regards,

Daniel

sublimestyle:I am having some difficulties with adverb placement. I read somewhere that adverbs usually precede, but may also follow, the word or words it modifies. Then it was noted that one should be careful of the placement because you could have a sentence like "Mi volis preskaŭ havi tiun, which could either mean "I alomost wished to have that" or I wished almost to have that." I was wondering if situations occur like this often, and how one should avoid them, and also how to say both sentences without ambiguity.

sublimestyle (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 13 d. 00:22:17

Thank you for your replies, especially danielcg's which helped me out and made me laugh at the same time.

NothingHere (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 13 d. 00:34:59

Chainy:A good example of the importance of the placement of the adverb:

Mi tute ne komprenas = I don't understand at all.

Mi ne tute komprenas = I don't fully understand.
I'm not trying to refute your point; I think it's a good example. But couldn't that also be avoided by saying "Mi tute malkomprenas" (= I don't understand at all) since that would allow "tute" to be placed before
or after "malkomprenas?" And then if you don't fully understand, the second sentence would apply, and it would also comply with English word order?

This could be totally wrong, which is why I'm asking, but I'm still curious.

Chainy (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. vasaris 13 d. 01:50:05

NothingHere: But couldn't that also be avoided by saying "Mi tute malkomprenas" (= I don't understand at all) since that would allow "tute" to be placed before
or after "malkomprenas?"
Yes, I suppose you could use 'mal-' here and then it wouldn't matter where you put the 'tute'. But, the use of 'mal-' gives the sentence an even stronger meaning than if you just use 'ne'.

'Mal-' and 'ne-' have their own nuances. PMEG gives some good examples here.

It's often possible to twist Esperanto around so that it conforms with the way of saying things in English. But, then it's probably better to get used to the more typically Esperanto way of doing it!

Atgal į pradžią