Miland:

sudanglo:Miland 'forta pluvo jam falis' (it was already raining, had already started to rain) means that the pluvo is coming down 'now', at the time in question..

PMEG states: IS montras, ke la ago okazis antaŭ la nuno. I translate: "IS shows that the action occurred before the present." Therefore forta pluvo jam falis means that the rain had already come down before the time in question. To show that the rain had already begun to fall (but was still going on) we might say forta pluvo jam ekfalis.

I think the sentence we're analysing is making this particularly difficult. The first part of the sentence 'Estis varma aŭtuna posttagmezo' clearly indicates that the rain couldn't possibly have been falling at the same time as it being 'a warm autumn day'! So, even if grammatically a bit inaccurate, the information in the first part of the sentence makes us interpret 'jam falis' as meaning 'jam antaŭe falis', ie. the rain fell earlier. And 'jam' makes it impossible for the 'falis' to refer to the rain falling at a later time.

But, if we take another example, then I think you'll agree that it's important to make a distinction between 'jam' and 'jam antaŭe', certainly when both parts of the sentence are in the past tense:

"Mi renkontis mian amikon, kaj la pluvo jam falis" - I would translate this as meaning 'I met my friend and the rain was already falling'.

The reason for this is that if the rain had finished earlier, then I would expect the person to say:

"Mi renkontis mian amikon, kaj la pluvo jam antaŭe falis" (=estis falinta)"

And if the rain started just after my meeting with my friend, I would expect:

"Mi renkontis mian amikon, kaj la pluvo ekfalis" - you could add 'tuj' or 'tiam' to make it clear that the rain started just seconds after the moment that you meet your friend. If you want to indicate that there was some longer period of time between the meeting and the start of the rain, then you could add 'pli poste' instead.

'Falis' can clearly have the meaning of 'was falling'. It can also mean 'had fallen', depending on the context. The problem is that when both parts of the sentence are in simple IS-form past tense the use of 'jam' makes it no clearer what meaning of 'falis' is meant. The 'jam' can either mean 'already' or 'earlier than you expected' - the former meaning of 'jam' would go with the interpretation of 'falis' as 'had already fallen', whereas the latter would go with the idea of it meaning 'was falling'.

If you say 'estis falinta' then the verb form clearly indicates that the rain had fallen previously, so you can simply say 'jam estis falinta'. But if you want to use 'falis' in the same meaning, then it's essential to say 'jam antaŭe', not just 'jam'.

The important thing is that if you want to stick to the simple IS-forms of the past tense, then you need to be very careful about adding the correct 'helper' words such as 'antaŭe', 'tiam', 'poste', 'jam', 'jam antaŭe' etc - if you forget these little words or use them wrongly then it can all get rather confusing!

So, you could almost argue, that in some cases it's actually easier to use the 'estis falinta' style verbs - the 'kunmetitaj verboformoj'. I personally find it very useful to use these at times.

Ok, so yes it is actually possible for it to be a 'warm autumn day' and to be raining at the same time. I just had the idea of sun etc in my mind! So, yet more reason to make sure you throw in the 'antaŭe' to prevent misunderstanding. Of course, you can just use 'antaŭe' alone as jchthys mentioned! - he also managed to avoid the painfully long analysis!

Miland:

sudanglo:Miland 'forta pluvo jam falis' (it was already raining, had already started to rain) means that the pluvo is coming down 'now', at the time in question..

PMEG states: IS montras, ke la ago okazis antaŭ la nuno. I translate: "IS shows that the action occurred before the present." Therefore forta pluvo jam falis means that the rain had already come down before the time in question. To show that the rain had already begun to fall (but was still going on) we might say forta pluvo jam ekfalis.

I think you're misinterpreting this a bit. The IS-formo clearly means that you're refering to something before the present. But you can have two IS-verbs in one sentence and they can be happening at the same time!

Take this for example:

Mi spektis televidon kaj manĝis fritojn - la manĝado okazis dum la sama tempo de la spektado. (the eating happened at the same time as the watching TV)

You could add 'jam' to the above sentence:

Mi spektis televidon kaj jam manĝis fritojn = I was watching TV and already eating chips (rather than waiting till later).

And then you can add 'jam antaŭe':

Mi spektis televidon, kaj jam antaŭe manĝis fritojn. = I was watching TV and I had already eaten some chips. = Mi spektis televidon, kaj jam estis manĝinta fritojn. (no 'antaŭe' needed here as the verb indicates this)

Chainy:

Miland:

sudanglo:Miland 'forta pluvo jam falis' (it was already raining, had already started to rain) means that the pluvo is coming down 'now', at the time in question..

PMEG states: IS montras, ke la ago okazis antaŭ la nuno. I translate: "IS shows that the action occurred before the present." Therefore forta pluvo jam falis means that the rain had already come down before the time in question. To show that the rain had already begun to fall (but was still going on) we might say forta pluvo jam ekfalis.

I think you're misinterpreting this a bit..

I don't think so, since the sentence just before the one I cited from PMEG says: INT, IT kaj IS ĉiuj signifas, ke la ago finiĝis. I translate: "INT, IT and IS all mean that the action is completed". Furthermore, I haven't denied that -is can be used for the past continuous; however PMEG indicates that it is more appropriate for completed actions. The meaning of a double -is for simultaneous past continuous actions is often clear from the context, or can be made so by adding helper words like jam or antaŭe, but this illustrates my main point; complex tenses are as often as not unnecessary.

Miland:

Chainy:

Miland:

sudanglo:Miland 'forta pluvo jam falis' (it was already raining, had already started to rain) means that the pluvo is coming down 'now', at the time in question..

PMEG states: IS montras, ke la ago okazis antaŭ la nuno. I translate: "IS shows that the action occurred before the present." Therefore forta pluvo jam falis means that the rain had already come down before the time in question. To show that the rain had already begun to fall (but was still going on) we might say forta pluvo jam ekfalis.

I think you're misinterpreting this a bit..

I don't think so, since I haven't denied that -is can be used for the past continuous; however PMEG indicates that it is more appropriate for completed actions. The meaning of a double -is for simultaneous past continuous actions is often clear from the context, or can be made so by adding helper words like jam or antaŭe, but this illustrates my main point; complex tenses are as often as not unnecessary.

I don't understand your response here.

Maybe you agree with me, just that I don't get your explanation?

How exactly does it help us by saying that IS-forms are usually for completed actions? - that is true of the past continuous (was falling), past simple (fell) and the past perfect (had fallen), as well as the past perfect continuous (had been falling) in English! In relation to the present, they are all completed.

But, for some reason, you seem to have interpreted this as meaning that the IS-form relates primarily to the past perfect (had fallen) in the case of 'jam falis' in our sentence. But, as I've tried to explain, there is no way you can say this with such certainty. The past continuous is also a completed action, just that it was one that lasted a period of time, so 'jam falis' can just as easily relate to this. In fact, as I've already said, the lack of 'antaŭe' does indeed suggest that the past continuous is intended, and that the 'jam' has the meaning of 'already' in the sense of being earlier than expected.

But, anyway, perhaps it doesn't matter. When analysing a sentence it's easy to lose track a bit. I've often noticed that people have misunderstandings in discussions about grammar, words (particularly the use of neologisms) etc and then you later see everyone, all parties in the discussion using the language in very similar ways in reality.

Miland:

sudanglo:Miland 'forta pluvo jam falis' (it was already raining, had already started to rain) means that the pluvo is coming down 'now', at the time in question..

PMEG states: IS montras, ke la ago okazis antaŭ la nuno. I translate: "IS shows that the action occurred before the present." Therefore forta pluvo jam falis means that the rain had already come down before the time in question. To show that the rain had already begun to fall (but was still going on) we might say forta pluvo jam ekfalis.

Another attempt at understanding...

You say that:

"Estis varma aŭtuna posttagmezo, kaj forta pluvo jam falis" = It was a warm autumn afternoon and it had [already] rained heavily.

So, how would you say this in Esperanto?:

"It was a warm autumn afternoon and it was already raining heavily"

Ok, so weird weather, but you know what I mean!

Chainy:
I don't understand your response here..How exactly does it help us by saying that IS-forms are usually for completed actions? ..you seem to have interpreted this as meaning that the IS-form relates primarily to the past perfect (had fallen).. in the case of 'jam falis' in our sentence..there is no way you can say this with such certainty..

The context, particularly if helper words are used, usually makes the meaning clear. That is why complex tenses are usually not necessary.

Chainy:So, how would you say this in Esperanto?:"It was a warm autumn afternoon and it was already raining heavily"

One way might be: Estis varma aŭtuna posttagmezo. Jam komencis pluvi forte. One could also use simply Forte pluvis if the context made it clear, for example that a person was holding an umbrella to keep dry, or that the sound of rain falling on the ground could be heard. But feel free to use Forte pluvantis if it makes you happy.

Miland, whereas the oft-repeated notion that the word order in Esperanto is 'libera', is a fairly innocuous idea in that one rarely encounters a consistent application of this idea leading to bizarre word orders, the notion that the compound tenses are always bad style is a positively dangerous one.

In reading translations (in Esperanto), I have not infrequently come across sentences where an overzealous avoidance of complex forms has left me puzzling over what was actually going on.

Sometimes, it really is good style to use a complex verb form. After all, we cannot argue that lack of clarity in the sequence of events is good style.

sudanglo:the notion that the compound tenses are always bad style is a positively dangerous one.

Statements with "always" in them are certainly liable to such danger.

sudanglo:In reading translations (in Esperanto), I have not infrequently come across sentences where an overzealous avoidance of complex forms has left me puzzling over what was actually going on.

If the context does not make the meaning clear, then the certainly the translation is inadequate.

sudanglo:
Sometimes, it really is good style to use a complex verb form..

I don't deny the possibility; my purpose is to encourage restraint in the use of complex tenses.