K vsebini
Odgovori

Language Question

od page4of3, 11. marec 2011

Sporočila: 85

Jezik: English

sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 11. marec 2011 15:02:50

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.

I think the general answer is that you use a ke clause (as others have indicated). Though sometimes a noun will do

You might want to try different verbs for love and hate here than ami and malami.

Tio vere ne plaĉas al mi, ke vi diris tion.
Mi ne aprecas, ke vi diris tion.
Mi tre malŝatas, ke vi diris tion

Tre plaĉas al mi, ke vi min aŭskultis
Mi aprecas vian aŭskultemon.

Mi dankas, ke vi helpis min
Dankon por via helpo.

Mi respektis vin pro la sciigo.
Mi respektis vin pro tio, ke vi informis min.

erinja (Prikaži profil) 11. marec 2011 15:19:18

johmue:Why do we say "antaŭ OL" and "post KIAM"?
You can say "post ol" and "antaŭ kiam". It's done occasionally but it's rare.

PMEG says:
PMEG:Logike oni povus ankaŭ uzi antaŭ kiam, same kiel oni uzas post kiam. Alternative oni povus same logike uzi post ol anstataŭ post kiam. Sed jam delonge estas kutimo uzi antaŭ ol kaj post kiam. Ambaŭ estas logikaj. Logikaj estus ankaŭ antaŭ ke (= antaŭ tio ke), kaj post ke (= post tio ke), sed tiuj esprimoj ne estas praktike uzataj. Estas rekomendinde uzi antaŭ ol kaj post kiam, ĉar ili estas plej facile komprenataj ĝuste pro sia kutimeco.
My translation:
Logically, you can also use antaŭ kiam, just as you use post kiam. Alternately, you can just as logically use post ol instead of post kiam. But it has already been a custom for a long time to use antaŭ ol and post kiam. Both are logical. Other logical variants are antaŭ ke (=antaŭ tio ke), and post ke (= post tio ke) but those expressions aren't used in practice. It is recommended to use antaŭ ol and post kiam, because they are most easily understood, since they are so frequently heard.

jefusan (Prikaži profil) 11. marec 2011 15:43:45

According to David Jordan in Being Colloquial in Esperanto:

"It would be logical to say post ol, but Slavic languages do not do it that way, and Zamenhof’s instincts apparently led him to follow the Slavic languages without thinking much about it. Post ol keeps getting reïnvented on the model of antaŭ ol, but speakers of Slavic languages, in my experience, tend to find post ol surprisingly confusing. Because it is logical for most other Esperantists, it may someday become standard. Meanwhile, one is better advised to stick with post kiam."

ceigered (Prikaži profil) 11. marec 2011 16:24:55

I think for anyone coming across it for the first time, a preposition + ol is always confusing. At least I felt that way!

sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 12. marec 2011 11:31:54

Ceiger, in the small set of words in Esperanto that can be used without a gramtika finaĵo you find that several of them can belong to more than one part of speech.

You perhaps could encompass the usage of antaŭ ol in the general framework by saying that here it behaves like an adverb - or belongs to some other word class than preposition?

I don't think I have come across any theory as to which classes specific words in this set must belong to.

Is 'post' in 'post kiam' a preposition?

ceigered (Prikaži profil) 13. marec 2011 08:05:44

sudanglo:Ceiger, in the small set of words in Esperanto that can be used without a gramtika finaĵo you find that several of them can belong to more than one part of speech.

You perhaps could encompass the usage of antaŭ ol in the general framework by saying that here it behaves like an adverb - or belongs to some other word class than preposition?
Yeah I had thought that but then it gets confusing with antaŭ - e.g. why can that not just be flexible too and work as a conjunction when necessary?
I guess in this case usage and what the Esperanto community understand as being the right way are the most important factors for why we say antaŭ ol (perhaps evidence that no constructed language is perfectly regular in logic, unless it's made to be illogical in the first place lango.gif)

darkweasel (Prikaži profil) 13. marec 2011 08:20:34

For some reason I don't think post ol and antaŭ ol in any way make logical sense, since normally ol is for comparison (and normally goes together with pli).

Antaŭ kiam and post kiam do make sense if you analyze them as antaŭ/post la tempo, kiam. However, actually it seems to me most logical to use - in analogy to por ke, malgraŭ ke etc. - ke with both.

Then again, existing usage prefers antaŭ ol and post kiam, so they are definitely correct - I just don't think that they're the most logical way of expressing things.

page4of3 (Prikaži profil) 15. marec 2011 23:48:59

well, Thanks for the answer...
Not sure if I understand it, but when I get to that level maybe I will. malgajo.gif

ceigered (Prikaži profil) 16. marec 2011 06:47:22

page4of3:well, Thanks for the answer...
Not sure if I understand it, but when I get to that level maybe I will. malgajo.gif
Whoops, sorry mate, completely missed your question (as so often happens in these forums!)
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.
While it doesn't sound as elegant, this is how I'd do it although I think I'm rehashing over other peoples' advice:

Ĉar (vi faras ion), mi (faras ion)
(Because you blah'd, I blah'd).

*or*
Mi (faras ion) pro via (noun form of a verb).

Thus "Mi malamas vin pro viaj malĝentilaj vortoj" or "Mi amas vin pro via aŭskultado al mi" etc.

So because there's no "for ...-ing that" in Esperanto, you have to use either "ĉar" (because), or "pro" (because OF).
So "Mi amas vin ĉar vi estas ĝentila" vs "Mi amas vin pro via ĝentileco".
Plus that "pro ke" bit (because of (the fact) that), e.g. "I respect you because of the fact that you're a good leader" etc.
(Mi respektas vin pro ke vi estas bona gvidanto).
(Although as you can see, there isn't much of a difference between "ĉar" and "pro ke", only that "pro ke" is a bit more strangely precise, but also rarer).

sudanglo (Prikaži profil) 16. marec 2011 11:06:11

Malkutimeco estas tamen forta argumento. Oni ne senbezone esprimu sin en maniero tiel nekutima, ke oni eble ne estas komprenata. Prefere oni do uzu helpan tio ...
Anstataŭ pro ke, oni uzu pro tio ke (PMEG)

A beginner is asking for advice here Ceiger. It is not a place to peddle any fascination you might have for unused forms.

Of course, Pro ke or Pro+infinitive might become used. Sen+infinitive was not used in the early days and now is well established. Ŝi parolis sen movi la lipojn - she spoke without moving her lips.

There's an important difference between 'mi amas vin, ĉar vi estas ĝentila' - which is explaining why you love someone, what personality feature attracts - and constructions with an unqualifed 'ke', like 'Mi amas, ke vi ĝentile traktis lin'.

'Mi amas, ke' is to say what you like/love, not to give a reason (there are other verbs for this than ami).

Mi antaŭdankas vin pro via ĝentila komprenemo.

Nazaj na začetek