Al la enhavo
Respondi

Language Question

de page4of3, 2011-marto-11

Mesaĝoj: 85

Lingvo: English

page4of3 (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 12:15:23

I didn't really know how to ask this in Esperanto, and I'm probably not there in the lessons yet, but how fo you to the construction:

I VERB you for VERBing X.

EX.
I hate you for saying that.
I love you for listening to me.
I thank you for helping me.
I respected you for letting me know.

johmue (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 12:28:55

page4of3:I didn't really know how to ask this in Esperanto, and I'm probably not there in the lessons yet, but how fo you to the construction:

I VERB you for VERBing X.
There is no such construction in Esperanto that fits all. You would use some kind of clause in those cases or a nound discribing VERBinĝ.

Maybe you can use the infinitive instead of the english present progressive in some cases.
I hate you for saying that.
Dankon, ke vi diris tion.
Dankon pro diri tion.
I love you for listening to me.
Mi vin amas, ĉar vi min aŭskultas.
I thank you for helping me.
Dankon pro via helpo.
I respected you for letting me know.
I don't quite understand the meaning of the sentence. Maybe: Mi respektis vin pro ke vi sciigis min.

3rdblade (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 13:08:31

page4of3:I hate you for saying that.
I love you for listening to me.
I thank you for helping me.
I respected you for letting me know.
Yep, sounds like one of those cases where you want to translate the meaning using a different grammatical form from the English. I think these are on the level:

Mi malamas vin, ĉar vi diris tion.
Mi amas vin, ĉar vi aŭskultas min.
Dankon pro via helpo.
Mi respektis vin pro min informigis.

johmue (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 13:21:19

3rdblade:Mi respektis vin pro min informigis.
* "pro" is a preposition which is therefore to be followed by a noun or a clause.

* "informi" is transitive.

Mi respektis vin pro via informo.
Mi respektis vin pro ke vi min informis.

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 13:25:30

* "pro" is a preposition which is therefore to be followed by a noun or a clause.

Mi respektis vin pro ke vi min informis.
While not illogical, "pro ke" is very rare in Esperanto and so would sound strange if you spoke that way. PMEG's opinion on the matter: "Anstataŭ pro ke oni uzu pro tio ke aŭ ĉar."

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 14:27:30

Pro ke, +100 for creative use of language. I'll have to remember that (or pro tio ke), might come in handy one day if I'm sick of say "ĉar" 2000x in the same sentence...

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 14:28:50

Yeah, I was just going to say "pro ke" sounds super weird to me, though I couldn't think of a reason why it would be wrong.

I'd say "pro tio ke" personally. If I wanted to avoid "ĉar" for some reason, that is.

My list would be:

Mi malamas vin ĉar vi diris tion (I hate you for saying that) OR the similar "Mi malamas ke vi diris tion" (I hate that you said that - I don't hate you, but I hate the fact that you said something)

Mi amas vin ĉar vi aŭskultas min. OR Mi amas vin pro via aŭskultado. [the second version doesn't specify that it's listening to me, but that part would be inferred through context]

Dankon ke vi helpis min, or Dankon por via helpo.

Mi respektis vin ĉar vi sciigis min, or Mi respektis vin por via sciigo. [the letting *me* know is missing from the second version, but again, it would be understood from context]

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 14:41:36

ceigered:Pro ke, +100 for creative use of language. I'll have to remember that (or pro tio ke), might come in handy one day if I'm sick of say "ĉar" 2000x in the same sentence...
"Pro tio ke" would be the 'normal' choice. Pro ke would sound wrong to most experienced speakers. "Por ke", however, is relatively common.

Bertilo specifies in PMEG that "pro" is used with "ke" with the word "tio" put in between them. Unfortunately there's no additional comment on whether it would be actually wrong to use "pro ke", but no one does it.

There are only a few prepositions that have a history of being used with "ke", and most of them seem to have an obvious 'verby' meaning, their inherent definition encourages you to put a verb after them (antaŭ ke, por ke, sen ke, krom ke, malgraŭ ke). "Pro ke" doesn't seem to work because the word "pro" (indicating goal, motive, or cause) invites you to put a noun after it, rather than a verb (as is the case for most prepositions). "Pro ke mi venis" would translate as something like "Due to that I came..."; why would you say this, instead of "Due to my arrival" (pro mia veno), or "Because I came" (ĉar mi venis)?

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 14:56:25

Erinja:Unfortunately there's no additional comment on whether it would be actually wrong to use "pro ke", but no one does it.
On the page I linked to there's the following:

PMEG:Sed nur malkutimeco estas argumento kontraŭ frazoj kiel: Li sukcesis eskapi, pro ke vi dormis. Malkutimeco estas tamen forta argumento.
That looks to me like a tacit acceptance that it violates no grammatical rule. I think he would have mentioned it there if it did.

johmue (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-11 15:01:20

erinja:Bertilo specifies in PMEG that "pro" is used with "ke" with the word "tio" put in between them. Unfortunately there's no additional comment on whether it would be actually wrong to use "pro ke", but no one does it.
On the other PMEG-page posted in this thread he says:

Sed nur malkutimeco estas argumento kontraŭ frazoj kiel: "Ni parolis, pri ke la prezoj ĉiam altiĝas." "Oni argumentis, kontraŭ ke ili ekloĝu en la urbo." "Li sukcesis eskapi, pro ke vi dormis." "Tio okazis, antaŭ ke mi naskiĝis."

According to that it's not wrong using "pro ke", only uncommon, which might also be a reason not to use it.
There are only a few prepositions that have a history of being used with "ke", and most of them seem to have an obvious 'verby' meaning, their inherent definition encourages you to put a verb after them (antaŭ ke, por ke, sen ke, krom ke, malgraŭ ke). "Pro ke" doesn't seem to work because the word "pro" (indicating goal, motive, or cause) invites you to put a noun after it, rather than a verb (as is the case for most prepositions). "Pro ke mi venis" would translate as something like "Due to that I came..."; why would you say this, instead of "Due to my arrival" (pro mia veno), or "Because I came" (ĉar mi venis)?
Probably "pro ke" is uncommon because it can easily replaced by "ĉar". Same as "malgraŭ ke" can be replaced by "kvankam". The variants "pro tio ke" and "malgraŭ tio ke" in my understanding put a little bit more emphasis on the thing after "ke".

Actually I suggested "pro ke" in the first place to explain that you can relate a preposition to a verb by using "ke".

BTW: Interesting prepositions are "antaŭ" and "post".

* Mi maljam povas eklabori post kiam mi ricevis la materialon.
* Mi ne povas eklabori antaŭ ol mi ricevis la materialon.

Why do we say "antaŭ OL" and "post KIAM"?

Reen al la supro