Wpisy: 91
Język: English
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 17:40:17
Granted their use is not frequent, but when you need to be clear about temporal relations it is perfectly good style to use them, IMHO.
And if shunning them means the reader is left with a cloud of doubt about what actually happened, then that interferes with the enjoyment of the novel.
Chainy (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 17:57:55
jchthys: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):yes, you're absolutely right. The exact link to that section is here
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.
Both parts are relative to the *absolute present*.
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 18:20:52
Looking at Chainy's two sentences, I think we can see that in the first of those, we can use simple forms because that doesn't cause too much difficulty. The normal case is that the two past actions occur at the same time - so 'Jam pluvis kiam mi alvenis' is fine.
However, this translation is open to a second interpretation in which the pluvo had stopped. How many Esperantists would immediately take it this way would have to be determined by experimentation. (In other words get your translations checked before you publish).
Should we need to emphasize that the pluvo was ongoing (hadn't stopped), perhaps that would justify the use of 'estis pluvanta'.
The second sentence is easy. We can profit from the complex form to make the meaning clear - so 'Estis jam pluvinta kiam mi alvenis'.
In detective stories the exact sequence of the events can be critical.
jchthys (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 19:08:24
Chainy:Maybe you don't see a difference between:1. Jam ekpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
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'.
2. Jam pluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
Personally, I think I would use a compound tense for the first one (estis pluvanta) but not the second, because interpreting the second as simultaneous action seems a stretch to me. Would any of you see it the other way?
danielcg (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 19:10:46
Jam finpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
Regards,
Daniel
jchthys:
1. Jam ekpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
2. Jam pluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
Personally, I think I would use a compound tense for the first one (estis pluvanta) but not the second, because interpreting the second as simultaneous action seems a stretch to me. Would any of you see it the other way?
Miland (Pokaż profil) 26 lutego 2011, 21:06:23
Chainy:I'm just disappointed that you can't help me with that translation above.My reason was that, following a debate which was beginning to get heated, I suspected that the question was rhetorical. But if you really want to know, in my view jchthys' answer is as good as any. Alternatives might be
1. (a) Mi alvenis dum la pluvo.
(b) Mi alvenis antaŭ ol la pluvo ĉesis.
2. Ĉesis pluvi antaŭ ol mi alvenis.
As I have said, my argument is not that compound tenses cannot or should never be used; I have only called for restraint.
But I feel I've said enough now, and so I'll leave this matter. Ĝis denove!
Chainy (Pokaż profil) 27 lutego 2011, 00:58:19
jchthys:That's interesting, got me thinking.Chainy:Maybe you don't see a difference between:1. Jam ekpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
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'.
2. Jam pluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
I've just been looking at the PAG pdf that Miland gave the link to (thank you).
Now, before Miland leaps at me and yells 'I told you so', would you be so kind as to read the following carefully and note one very important word, ie 'momenta' (momentary). This seems to be significant. Here's the quote with a translation in brackets:
"Jam signas:
('jam' means
II. ke momenta ago okazis, sekve finiĝis (= antaŭ nun, antaŭ tiam):
(II. that a momentary action happened, and subsequently finished (= before now, before then)):
{K]"Li jam foriris"[/i] (= He has already gone. And a few other examples similar to this)
El tiu baza signifo venas ĝia uzo a) por signi tempon perfektan:
(From that basic meaning comes its use a) for signaling the perfect tense)
"La kuracisto venis, kiam li jam mortis" (= The doctor came when he [the patient] had [already] died.)
------
I find if very significant that they note 'momentary action'. In the case that we've been discussing, could you describe 'pluvo' as momentary? Well, maybe in some cases, but we generally think of it as a continuous action over a period of time. Maybe that is what caused me to come to my conclusion that 'jam pluvis' must surely mean 'it was already raining', rather than 'it had already rained'. You could say that the above quote from PAG does not apply to 'pluvi' as it isn't a momentary action (momenta ago)?
Obviously, in the case of 'morti' we can easily see this as a 'momentary action'. Ok some people have long, drawn-out deaths, but generally we talk about it in the sense of a 'momenta ago'.
Chainy (Pokaż profil) 27 lutego 2011, 01:08:02
Chainy (Pokaż profil) 27 lutego 2011, 01:09:06
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 27 lutego 2011, 11:13:45
'Jam pluvis kiam mi alvenis' opens the door to confusion, though I think that most people would understand it in the sense of 'It was already raining when I arrived'.
But, 'Jam estis pluvinta kiam mi alvenis' does what it says on the tin.