Simplifying Tenses
ca, kivuye
Ubutumwa 91
ururimi: English
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 27 Ruhuhuma 2011 16:31:40
1. When I arrived, it was already raining =
a) Kiam mi alvenis, jam ekpluvis. (simple verb method)
b) Kiam mi alvenis, jam estis pluvanta. (complex verb method)
2. When I arrived, it had already rained =
a) Kiam mi alvenis, jam antaŭe pluvis (simple verb)
b) Kiam mi alvenis, jam estis pluvinta. (complex verb)
- as mentioned by PAG, just 'jam' is not enough for 2a due to the possible misunderstanding. So, the addition of 'antaŭe' makes it clear.
- and just 'jam pluvis' is also not enough for 1a, due to the fact that it would not be clear whether it refers to 'had rained' or 'was raining'. So, the addition of 'ek-' is necessary.
@Miland: according to PAG, both of us were a bit off in our interpretation of this!
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 27 Ruhuhuma 2011 17:28:32
danielcg: If I had to absolutely avoid compound tenses and at the same time be absolutely certain to be understood, I would say:Yes, this is a good alternative to "Jam antaŭe pluvis, kiam mi alvenis". The 'fin-' marks that it's a perfective action.
Jam finpluvis, kiam mi alvenis.
sudanglo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 09:58:01
I suspect the prefix 'fin' is only used for actions that have a natural conclusion (which raining doesn't) - so finlegi libron, fintrinki kafon.
The natural way to say it had already started to rain when I arrived is 'Jam komencis pluvi, kiam mi alvenis.
I think I stick by my position that although there is a theoretical ambiguity in 'Jam pluvis kiam mi alvenis', most people would take that to mean that it was already raining when I arrived.
A simple survey as to whether the rain had stopped or not would settle that issue.
I don't find 'ekpluvi' to convey this meaning satisfactorily - possibly because of the double function of 'ek' (beginning and momentary), possibly because it gives a different emphasis to the rain than simple contemporaneity.
What is perfectly clear though is that meanings of the complex verb forms 'pluvanta' and 'pluvinta' are precise and remove doubt. So how can it be bad style to use them if precision is important?
sudanglo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 10:33:08
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 13:54:38
sudanglo:I think I stick by my position that although there is a theoretical ambiguity in 'Jam pluvis kiam mi alvenis', most people would take that to mean that it was already raining when I arrived.To be honest, this was my first reaction, too. Take a look at my first message here.
If I wanted to say that it had rained previously, then I'd prefer to say 'Jam pluvis antau ol mi alvenis'.
Just that PAG suggested caution here. I suppose it's a tricky ground when it comes to agreeing upon what verbs represent a 'momenta ago'.
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 14:10:48
sudanglo:I know what you mean. The first time I saw 'ekpluvis' in this case, I really wasn't too sure about it.
I don't find 'ekpluvi' to convey this meaning satisfactorily - possibly because of the double function of 'ek' (beginning and momentary), possibly because it gives a different emphasis to the rain than simple contemporaneity.
'Ek' does indeed mark the beginning of something, so that equates to 'komenci'.
Yes, 'ek' can also have the function of marking a sudden and short action ('subiteco' as PMEG puts it) It's interesting to take a look at the PMEG example:
ekbrili - to suddenly and momentarily emit a bright light.
- Usually, you think of 'brili' as a 'dauxra ago', pretty much as you would with 'pluvi', so then you could interpret 'ekpluvis' as meaning that there was a sudden and brief gush of rain! Slightly unlikely, but you never know.
So, yes it could seem a bit odd to use 'ek-' here. But then maybe it's possible for us to accept that if 'ekpluvis' is used in the situation marking past continuous or 'it had started to ...' in a subclause, then we should ignore the 'subiteco' element?!
Just some thoughts...
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 14:17:44
sudanglo:yes, this seems to be true of the verbs given as examples in PMEG. This is a tricky one - I'll take a look at PAG when I get home.
I suspect the prefix 'fin' is only used for actions that have a natural conclusion (which raining doesn't) - so finlegi libron, fintrinki kafon.
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 14:24:05
sudanglo:The natural way to say it had already started to rain when I arrived is 'Jam komencis pluvi, kiam mi alvenis.PAG seems to equate this with "Jam ekpluvis, kiam mi alvenis". I see where you're coming from with your doubts about this, though.
One thing is for sure, though - 'jam komencis pluvi' is definitely good (= "It had already begun to rain, when I arrived", which is very close to the meaning of 'It was already raining'...).
Yes, I know that I objected to 'jam komencis pluvi' earlier on in this thread. But, I was fixed on getting an exact translation of the 'past continuous' as in English. Seems a bit of flexibility is required...
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 14:53:06
sudanglo:Chainy, if 'fin' is perfective, what would you make of a sentence pair such as 'Fintrinkante sian kafon, Maigret forlasis la matenmanĝan tablon' / 'Fintrinkinte sian kafon Maigret leviĝis de la matenmanĝa tablo'.How about:
Fintrinkante sian kafon, Maigret forlasis la matenmanĝan tablon = Whilst drinking up her coffee, Maigret left the breakfast table.
Fintrinkinte sian kafon Maigret leviĝis de la matenmanĝa tablo = Having drunk up her coffee, Maigret stood up from the breakfast table.
Chainy (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 28 Ruhuhuma 2011 15:00:04
sudanglo:I don't think it's bad style. I just like the idea of using the simple forms if at all possible.
What is perfectly clear though is that meanings of the complex verb forms 'pluvanta' and 'pluvinta' are precise and remove doubt. So how can it be bad style to use them if precision is important?
In this particular case, I'm just interested in seeing how far the simple forms can be stretched to cover various meanings.