sudanglo:But why have to guess the most likely meaning when you can make the meaning clear?

I am not guessing. I have no doubts that my answer is correct. If the original French says otherwise, by all means enlighten me.

sudanglo:If you want authority, look at section 271 (tempoj absolutaj) in PAG.

What a good idea! I quote:

Laŭ la ekzemplo de la plej bonaj stilistoj, la kompleksaj verboformaj estas laŭeble evitindaj.

I translate:

"According to the example of the best stylists, the complex verbal forms are to be avoided whenever possible".

Yes, just the point I have been at pains to make. How good that Akademianoj Kalocsay and Waringhien agree with me.

sudanglo:
The puzzlement arose because Madame Maigret had already been looking out of the window and had even just turned to M. Maigret and told him he had better wear his thick coat.

So she clearly had already seen what the weather was outside.

Yet using the simple past in this sentence (and particularly with 'ek') does nothing to sort out the sequence of events.

Well, if Madame Maigret had already been talking about the weather, then it's difficult to understand the meaning of 'ekkonis' - but then it wouldn't matter what form of this verb you use, it wouldn't really make a lot of sense!

Unless, of course, she had been talking about the weather outside, and then suddenly forgot what the weather was like, and so had to look out of the window again to check. Maybe this character in the book does indeed suffer from a dodgy memory? Senility is a possibility.

sudanglo:In the second sentence the clarity could noticeably be improved by using a compound form - 'estis subirinta'. Indeed, you youself showed how it could easily be understood that it was still night.

Even if you use 'estis subirinta', it could still be night - this form of the verb just indicates that the fog had finished descending onto the street before the man looked out of the window. We can't tell how long ago it was, though.

sudanglo:
Delete the 'dum la nokto' from the sentence and you are left with the impression that the meaning is that that there is fog swirling in the street below which Madame Maigret is looking down on.

Isn't this the only impression we can possibly have? After all, the houses are difficult to see due to the fog, so this fog must indeed be in the street below at the time that the person looks out of the window.

sudanglo:Jchthys, the forms 'povintus' and 'devintus' seem to me to be well established in the language and, for some reason I can't put my finger on, quite useful - perhaps in the case 'devintus', even to carry a slightly different meaning to 'estus devinta'.

And 'estintus instead of the clumsy 'estus estinta', would certainly seem to be a good idea, though I can't say that I have heard that much.

Rewriting 'estis falinta' as 'falintis', seems at the moment a step too far. Does one then lose the adjectival force of 'falinta' - presenting the whole idea as verbal.

Is that the reason?

Yes, it makes it seem more like a single verb (which it is) rather than "was in the state of having already fallen" -- it's just that it "had fallen". (I know English uses a compound verb here, and I guess that's why my gut reaction is to feel that the sentence was constructed by an English-speaking komencanto.)

I understand how such forms might be "too much information packed into too small a space". But then again, that is what Esperanto affixes do all the time (it's what they're for). We have begun to use stative verbs (e.g. bluas) quite often, and it seems as if forms like falintis naturally follow -- it's just a matter of getting used to them. Besides, the way I see it, one should be using complex verbs only in exceptional circumstances, so a falintis every once in a while won't hurt anyone.

Miland:How good that Akademianoj Kalocsay and Waringhien agree with me.

I'm not sure they'd have agreed with your use of 'jam' earlier, though.

Miland:

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.

I'm not sure those akademianoj would agree with your translation above, either. Where did 'komencis' come from? - there is no hint of anything 'beginning' in the English sentence there. It was already raining heavily!! This means that the rain started before the point in time marked by 'it was a warm autumn afternoon'.

Miland: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.

So, the translation would be:

Estis varma aŭtuna posttagmezo, kaj forte pluvis

- yes, that's good, but you seem determined to ignore the word 'already', which would be 'jam'. And no, the addition of 'jam' wouldn't suddenly change the meaning of the sentence to 'and it had already rained heavily'!!

There are TWO possible meanings of 'already':

1. And it had already rained heavily (the rain is finished) = ...kaj jam antaŭe pluvis forte

2. And it was already raining heavily (=the rain started earlier, but continues in the time in question) = ...kaj jam pluvis forte.

- Note the difference that the use of antaŭe has. Just 'jam' is not suitable for both situations.

sudanglo:
On the question of whether '-is' means completed action, in a subclause, relative to the (past) time of the main clause verb, you only have to rewrite the sentence to 'Maigret rigardis eksteren al la knaboj kiuj kuris en la strato' to see that won't wash.

Yes, I agree with you completely. Nowhere in PMEG does it state that you should assume that the IS-verb in a subclause should have happened before the IS-verb in the main clause! Or to put it in other words, that it should have the past perfect meaning. That would have very strange consequences. Take, for example:

Mi rigardis la birdon, kiu sidis sur la muro.

According to Miland's theory, that would mean: I looked at the bird, that had been sitting on the wall. (or 'had sat')

- yes ok, this is in theory a possibility, but in reality the natural assumption is that 'I looked at a bird that was sitting on the wall'. If not, then how on earth would we actually say this?

Ok, so you could say 'kiu tiam sidis sur la muro' or 'en tiu momento'. But deary me, it is possible for two IS-verbs to be in the same sentence and be referring to things happening at the same time. ie. The past continuous.

If you don't want people to make the assumption that the bird was sitting on the wall at the moment that you looked at it, then you'd have to specify this:

Mi rigardis la birdon, kiu antaŭe sidis sur la muro

The fact is that the IS-verb in Esperanto can just as likely have any of the following meanings, depending on the context and the 'helper' words that might accompany it:

1. Past continuous (was sitting)
2. Past perfect (had sat)
3. Past perfect continous (had been sitting)

Miland, you should take a look at this PMEG page:Pasinta Tempo

Read the part where it says:

"Kelkaj lingvoj faras distingon inter ago/stato kiu daŭris, ago/stato kiu plenumiĝis, kaj ago/stato kiu okazis pli frue ol io alia. La Esperanta IS-formo estas uzebla egale pri ĉiaj specoj de pasinteco:"

(Translation: Some languages make a distinction between an action/state that lasted [a period of time], an action/state that was completed, and an action/state that happened earlier than something else. The Esperanto IS-form is equally usable for all types of the past [tense])

And then it gives some examples. No suggestion of one meaning having any particular preference.

What you have to remember is that all of the possible interpretations of the IS-verb are in fact 'completed actions' in relation to the present - and by that I mean now, the real present. The 'present' mentioned in PMEG does not mean the point marked by the first 'IS-verb' in a sentence - what you seem to refer to as 'the present of the time of speaking'.

Chainy:

Miland:How good that Akademianoj Kalocsay and Waringhien agree with me.

I'm not sure they'd have agreed with your use of 'jam' earlier, though.

I think they would, because they would also have access (in 2011) to PMEG, according to which is is normally to be used for a completed action. The context will usually make it clear whether an action is continuing. That is why jam is sufficient.

Chainy:Where did 'komencis' come from?

It's part of the meaning. For it to be raining, the rain had to have started.

Chainy:

sudanglo:
On the question of whether '-is' means completed action, in a subclause, relative to the (past) time of the main clause verb, you only have to rewrite the sentence to 'Maigret rigardis eksteren al la knaboj kiuj kuris en la strato' to see that won't wash.

Yes, I agree with you completely. Nowhere in PMEG does it state that you should assume that the IS-verb in a subclause should have happened before the IS-verb in the main clause! Or to put it in other words, that it should have the past perfect meaning. That would have very strange consequences. Take, for example:

Mi rigardis la birdon, kiu sidis sur la muro.

According to Miland's theory, that would mean: I looked at the bird, that had been sitting on the wall. (or 'had sat')

- yes ok, this is in theory a possibility, but in reality the natural assumption is that 'I looked at a bird that was sitting on the wall'. If not, then how on earth would we actually say this?

PMEG explicitly says that the tense of relative clauses is relative only to the present (in fact, I happened to be reading about this just last week). I quote (translated):

PMEG:Relative clauses (clauses with a ki-type relative pronoun) do not normally repeat what someone is saying or thinking. In these types of clauses, the tenses of the verbs are therefore relative to the absolute present:

Mi ne konis tiun, kiu venis. Konis and venis both indicate time before the present. Most probably they both indicate the same time.

Mi ne konis tiun, kiu estis veninta. Both konis and estis indicate time before the present. Veninta indicates time still earlier.

Mi ne konis la personon, kiu estis baldaŭ venonta tra la pordo. Both konis and estis indicate time before the present. Venonta indicates a time after that past time.

Miland:

Chainy:Where did 'komencis' come from?

It's part of the meaning. For it to be raining, the rain had to have started.

You're just being plain silly now.