To be fair Miland you might have quoted the immediately preceding passage from PAG:

Ĉar la simplaj verboformoj signas ĝenerale samtempecon kun la ĉefpredikata tempo, la antaŭ- aŭ posttempecon oni devas esprimi per aliaj rimedoj. Tiaj estas ekzemple la kompleksaj verboformoj

And I don't think it is too difficult to find examples where the meaning is clearest with their use.

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

I am glad that the page begins: IS-verboj montras, ke la ago aŭ stato estas reala, sed okazis iam antaŭ la momento de parolado. Normale la ago aŭ stato jam finiĝis.

I translate: "Verbs ending -IS show, that the act or state is real, but happened before the moment of speaking. Normally the act or state has been completed.

I am also glad that the page concludes: Preskaŭ ĉiam tamen simpla IS-verbo sufiĉas.

I translate:
"Almost always, however, the simple -IS suffix sufficies."

Which is my conclusion exactly.

Miland:

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.

Are we speaking the same language here?

Maybe you don't see a difference between:

1. It was already raining when I arrived.
2. It had already rained when I arrived.

How would you put those two into Esperanto? Please don't ignore the 'already'.

sudanglo:la antaŭ- aŭ posttempecon oni devas esprimi per aliaj rimedoj. Tiaj estas ekzemple la kompleksaj verboformoj
..I don't think it is too difficult to find examples where the meaning is clearest with their use.

I haven't denied that possibility. I have stressed PAG's qualification - the less we use complex tenses, the better!

Miland:I translate: "Verbs ending -IS show, that the act or state is real, but happened before the moment of speaking. Normally the act or state has been completed.

When I mentioned that 'moment of speaking' thing, that was more a desperate attempt to remember the way you'd put it and I couldn't be bothered sifting through the messages to check.

Still, you seem to be completely misunderstanding the meaning of 'at the moment of speaking'. Take this example (yet again):

'Mi spektis televidon kaj manĝis fritojn'

- "Mi spektis" is *not* the 'moment of speaking!!!

Chainy:1. It was already raining when I arrived.
2. It had already rained when I arrived.
How would you put those two into Esperanto? Please don't ignore the 'already'.

I would use context and avoid complex tenses. From what I have said so far, you should be able to work it out for yourself.

Miland:

Chainy:1. It was already raining when I arrived.
2. It had already rained when I arrived.
How would you put those two into Esperanto? Please don't ignore the 'already'.

I would use context and avoid complex tenses. From what I have said so far, you should be able to work it out for yourself.

Well, at least help us out Miland! Give us the translation so that we can all be enlightened.

Chainy:Give us the translation so that we can all be enlightened.

Even if I thought you couldn't work out the way I might do it (which is not the case), I think this argument has gone on long enough. Time to move on. Ĝis!

Miland:

I am also glad that the page concludes: Preskaŭ ĉiam tamen simpla IS-verbo sufiĉas.

I translate:
"Almost always, however, the simple -IS suffix sufficies."

Which is my conclusion exactly.

I don't think anyone would argue with this. But, it's not a bad thing to use the complex forms either. Depends on the situation.

I'm just disappointed that you can't help me with that translation above.

Well, compound tenses do exist for a reason. If it is harder to convey the meaning by the context or other words, why not pepper our speech or writing with compound tenses from time to time?

Jam estis pluvanta kiam mi venis.
Jam estis pluvinta kiam mi venis.

Regards,

Daniel

Miland:

Chainy:1. It was already raining when I arrived.
2. It had already rained when I arrived.
How would you put those two into Esperanto? Please don't ignore the 'already'.

I would use context and avoid complex tenses. From what I have said so far, you should be able to work it out for yourself.