sudanglo:In a nutshell, Chainy, you can't always rely on 'jam' to signal a perfect tense, however you can rely on 'int'.

'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.

Jam pluvintis kiam mi alvenis vs jam pluvis kiam mi alvenis to me mean
"It had already rained when I arrived"
and
"It already (had) rained/it was already raining when I arrived".
respectively.

sudanglo:
'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'.

And that is the real meaning of this sentence. Kiam means that it happens to the same time:
Pluvis kiam mi alvenis - Mi alvenis kaj samtempe pluvis.

Chainy:
"La kuracisto venis, kiam li jam mortis" (= The doctor came when he [the patient] had [already] died.)

No, the patient died when the doctor arrived. The jam can have different meanings, f.e. that the patient died earlier than expected.

jchthys:
1. Jam ekpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.

Personally, I think I would use a compound tense for the first one (estis pluvanta)

"Jam ekpluvis" sounds like "It had already started to rain". I suppose this conveys the same idea as 'It was already raining', so it's an option.

As Sudanglo mentioned in his last message, I think many would understand 'jam pluvis' as 'it was already raining'. This is perhaps due to the 'continuous nature' of the verb 'pluvi'. But, then I suppose officially, there's no such thing as Russian-style perfective and imperfective verbs in Esperanto!

horsto:

Chainy:
"La kuracisto venis, kiam li jam mortis" (= The doctor came when he [the patient] had [already] died.)

No, the patient died when the doctor arrived. The jam can have different meanings, f.e. that the patient died earlier than expected.

Horsto, I made that translation in response to PAG's explanation that 'jam' here has the effect of creating the perfective form of the verb (perfective = had died) Take a look at those links I posted above - I also wrote the quote in one of my messages here.

In PAG, the use of 'momenta ago' (momentary action) is confusing in the sense that then there's a whole debate on who sees what verb as a momentary action!

Ok, so perhaps it's possible to come to agreement on what precisely is or is not a 'momentary action verb'. But then, PAG makes no mention of the effect that 'jam' has on 'non-momentary action' verbs (ie. past continuous situations such as 'it was raining'). PMEG doesn't help on this matter either...

Yes, I agree that we can get round this problem by using 'estis pluvanta' or 'estis pluvinta', but it seems that there should be an agreed way of using the more simple verb constructions for this kind of thing as well.

It's a pity that this discussion isn't in the Esperanto-language forum here. Then we'd get views from a wider range of people. I'm just not sure that I have the energy to start up a discussion on this in Esperanto right now - feeling rather exhausted after this one in English! Maybe some other time?

In future we should make an effort to quickly move this kind of thing over to the Esperanto-language forum, though.

I was mistaken. The Plena Analiza Gramatiko (PAG) does indeed cover in detail our very question. PAG's explanation contains things that will probably please all the contributors in this thread! .

If any you are still bothered, then I highly recommend reading this: (see the snapshot of the pdf below)

and the remaining part:

I've been reading this discussion off and on. I don't think that anyone denies that complex verbs are *sometimes* needed, but the question is, to what lengths we should go to avoid them, and how important precision is.

Generally I teach beginners to avoid these verbs whenever possible. A beginner who speaks a language that uses a lot of complicated verb tenses (pretty much all of my students, since they are mostly native English and French speakers) can quickly conclude that a complex verb is necessary in a certain case, because in their native language, they would use a complex verb in that case. They have not yet learned the ways in which context and auxiliary time words can be used to avoid complex verbs, so through lack of knowledge of the options available to them, they decide they need a complex verb. And sure, in a few of those cases, maybe they really do need a complex verb, but in far more cases, they don't.

I don't recall whether anyone has discussed this particular point and I can't be bothered to check, but the root fin/ is often appended to a verb to indicate that the action has finished. This construction is another way to avoid a complex verb.

Therefore "finpluvis" could be used to mean that it had been raining and the rain had stopped. Some searches through the tekstaro reveal usages such as "Kiam ni fintrinkis la kafon, la gastiganto sciigis..." [When we finished drinking the coffee, the host let us] know that...]

Constructions like finlegi, finkonstrui, etc are especially common. It seems to be used mainly with transitive verbs but I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work with intransitive verbs like "pluvi", and I did see some intransitive usages, such as "finsidi".

I've read the PAG very carefully, and in summary, it suggests that it's best to avoid 'jam pluvis' for either of these two sentences:

1. When I arrived, it was already raining heavily
2. When I arrived, it had already rained heavily (=heavy rain had already fallen)

And here is the PAG explanation why:

"Se la subprop-a predikato estas verbo de daŭro, 'jam' ne taŭgas ĉi-sence (ie. to show the 'past perfect'/antaŭtempeco), ĉar ĝi povas signi, ke la daŭra ago jam komenciĝis:
"If the subclause predicate is a verb representing a period of time (daŭro), 'jam' is not suitable in this sense (ie. to show the past perfect), because it can signify, that the action lasting a period of time (daŭra ago) had already begun (my note: and was still continuing):"

PAG gives this example of how 'jam' can be understood in this situation:
li venis, kiam mi skribis jam la leteron (jam komencis la skribon) = He came, when I had begun to write the letter (which effectively is the same as 'He came when I was writing the letter')

And then PAG continues:

"Sed ĉar ankaŭ tia senco ne estas nepra, oni diru lastsence:
"But because this sense is also not necesarily the case, one should say for this: (Here, PAG is pointing to the fact that 'kiam mi skribis' could indeed still be interpreted by some to mean 'when I had written the letter'):

And PAG gives this example as a way of avoiding this misunderstanding:

"Li venis, kiam mi ekskribis jam la leteron" = He came when I had begun to write the letter(effectively = He came when I was already writing the letter)

So, there we have a seemingly definitive explanation from PAG on the matter. A clear explanation on how to use the simple forms of the verb to correctly convey the meaning. It also shows, however, that using the so called 'simple forms' is not always that easy. You have to be very careful with those 'helper' words, and we're also required to correctly use the 'ek-' and other prefixes... So, in some ways, you could almost say it's easier to use the 'complex' form in a case like this!

Miland, would you concede that I also had a mini 'told you so' moment somewhere amongst all of that?! (as did everyone in this discussion!) In fact, jchthys correctly pointed to the use of 'ekpluvis'.