Postitused: 8
Keel: English
freeze10108 (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 5:45.54
If you're using a verb that's derived from another using a preposition, say, "alporti," what do you do when the phrase you're translating requires the use of the same preposition used to form the new word?
For example, if I wanted to say "He brings the food to me," how would I go about saying "to me"? I mean, you wouldn't say, "alportas al mi," would you? It sounds awkward to say it that way.
Thanks!
darkweasel (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 7:52.43
freeze10108:Oh yes, that's exactly how you'd say that!
For example, if I wanted to say "He brings the food to me," how would I go about saying "to me"? I mean, you wouldn't say, "alportas al mi," would you? It sounds awkward to say it that way.
Miland (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 9:35.47
freeze10108:what do you do when the phrase you're translating requires the use of the same preposition used to form the new word?Such "double" propositions occur in Esperanto. For example Li eliris el la domo, Ŝi demetis la tukon for de la kapo, Li enigis la glavon en la ingon.
ceigered (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 10:27.10
So we're going from what's grammatical correct (both forms) to what's semantically(?) correct for the context, for the situation.
erinja (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 12:36.59
I'd check tekstaro.com before declaring that a form makes no sense, particularly if you don't have the experience to have seen it before, and are not currently active in speaking/using Esperanto
freeze10108 (Näita profiili) 2. aprill 2011 17:41.47
I suppose that the "awkwardness" I feel using this form will wear off in time. Actually, it seems less awkward seeing it in use now that it did when I first thought about it.
I've seen the Tekstaro come up before, but it never even crossed my mind to search it for this!
ceigered (Näita profiili) 3. aprill 2011 6:48.07
erinja:"li iris el la domo" is perfectly fine and normal. That usage has been around for the entire history of Esperanto, going back to the Fundamento.No no no, that's not what I mean
I'd check tekstaro.com before declaring that a form makes no sense, particularly if you don't have the experience to have seen it before, and are not currently active in speaking/using Esperanto
! I mean that "Li iris el la domo", when you want to signify departure, doesn't achieve that. E.g. "eliris" means to go out, to exit, where as "iri" simply means to go. So even though the double el effect might be a bit weird, you should think about what you're trying to say over what might seem less redundant. They both make sense, but there's a minor difference.E.g. "He went from his house to the post office" v.s. "He left his house" v.s. "He went from his house". All make sense, but ignoring how that last one feels awkward in English, the last one leaves you hanging, where as the middle one gives you a feeling of "Oh, there's nothing else they're trying to tell me apart from the fact he left the house". So one (eliri) has a more precise meaning while the other (iri) has a more generic meaning, which means it could extra information associated with it or missing.
Sorry about that confusion.
erinja (Näita profiili) 3. aprill 2011 13:02.44
But don't be too restrictive, ceigered. When talking about the Biblical Exodus story, Zamenhof's Bible repeatedly says "kiam ili iris el Egiptujo", without talking at all about the journey (that is, without following that up with the destination).
It's a stylistic point but I wouldn't call it wrong. And we do say in English as well that the Israelites went out from Egypt, without necessarily specifying where they were going.