Postitused: 17
Keel: English
paulbrill (Näita profiili) 7. aprill 2011 22:34.16
I know that lavi is "to wash", but what is the proper suffix in this context? "Lavas" wouldn't really make sense because it would be like saying "Thank you for is/are washing the dishes"--or am I wrong?
I'm thinking it should end up somewhere along the lines of "Dankon por lav___ la pladoj" but should it actually be totally restructured altogether?
Edit: Would I say "Dankon por lavado la pladoj"?
Evildela (Näita profiili) 7. aprill 2011 22:55.06
That be how I'd do it
3rdblade (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 1:33.59
paulbrill:How would one translate something like "Thank you for washing the dishes", for example?I'd say "Dankon ke vi lavis la pladojn." (Thankyou, that you washed the dishes.) We don't use that form in English. The continuous form of the verb (-ing) seems to be a lot more used in English than EO, and it gets strange sometimes. (eg. What are you doing tomorrow?) I think in this case it's better to firmly describe it as happening in the past, which is what I think you meant. I.e, you just washed the dishes, so I thank you.
Edit: Would I say "Dankon por lavado la pladoj"?
If you wanted to say thanks to someone who is in the middle of washing dishes, then I think your suggestion is OK, but you probably wouldn't need to say anything more than 'Dankon' because it would be clear what you're thanking them for!
danielcg (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 2:18.28
Dankon, ke vi lavis la pladojn.
Dankon pro tio, ke vi lavis la pladojn.
Dankon pro via lavo de la pladoj.
Always remember to translate the meaning of phrases and not individual words.
Regards,
Daniel
paulbrill:How would one translate something like "Thank you for washing the dishes", for example?
I know that lavi is "to wash", but what is the proper suffix in this context? "Lavas" wouldn't really make sense because it would be like saying "Thank you for is/are washing the dishes"--or am I wrong?
I'm thinking it should end up somewhere along the lines of "Dankon por lav___ la pladoj" but should it actually be totally restructured altogether?
Edit: Would I say "Dankon por lavado la pladoj"?
erinja (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 2:33.18
We use a preposition to indicate the direct object of a verb expressed in noun form.
But there is an interesting historical footnote. Zamenhof had a usage that never caught on; to modern speakers, it looks strange and wrong (one text that I read about it, an excerpt from an article in Monato that was indexed in the Tekstaro, even called this usage "a bit shocking").
Namely, he sometimes used the -n ending with verbs that were in noun form.
Today we would say "lavado de la pladoj". But Zamenhof might have said "lavado la pladojn". We would say "trinkantoj de vino", but he may have said "trinkantoj vinon"
Therefore in the sample sentence for this thread, Zamenhof might well have said "Dankon por via lavado la pladojn".
For anyone interested in reading a little further, the text in Monato discussing this topic comes from an article by Andre Cherpillod on the influence of Hebrew on Esperanto.
As I said, most Esperantists will consider Zamenhof's usage in this case to be strange and wrong. In my opinion, the only thing that makes it wrong is that it never caught on. But in languages, that seems to be as good a reason as any. At any rate I wouldn't recommend this usage, most people will think you're confused. For the purpose of clarity, it's better to stick with the noun-ized verb plus preposition (trinkado de vino, lavado de manĝiloj, kuirado de manĝo, etc)
PMEG also has a very brief discussion of this topic, with a similar notation that Zamenhof used -n after nouns of action, but that we don't do it today .
jchthys (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 2:41.30
Are the alternatives (fare de, al) at all common?
esperantulo (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 3:15.56
UUano (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 3:25.26
darkweasel (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 5:07.39
UUano:Is it wrong to say "Dankon por lavi la pladojn"?IMO, that's fine.
ceigered (Näita profiili) 8. aprill 2011 5:15.20
