הודעות: 58
שפה: English
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 20 באפריל 2011, 13:41:25
Kirilo81:But -int- does not indicate absolut past, but anteriority to a reference point which may lie in the past, presence or future.True, however "estus -inta" is a very well established part of the language and is understood to be a pointer to the past, regardless of the fact -US shows no time point to which -INT could be relative. So I don't think it's worth worrying about too much.
PMEG says "Simpla US-formo estas tute sentempa, sed multaj tamen sentas US-verbojn kiel nuntempajn, kaj uzas INTUS ĉiam, kiam temas pri pasinteco:"
Translated:
A simple US-form is completely time-neutral, but nevertheless many will perceive a US-verb as grounded in the present, and use INTUS when the condition relates to the past.
Since the prezencigo of the conditional has been part of the language since the days of Zamenhof I'm quite content to use those forms, in situations where the time-sense may be otherwise difficult to pinpoint.
Chainy (הצגת פרופיל) 20 באפריל 2011, 17:19:24
1. I will have gone by then = Mi jam foriros ĝis tiam / Mi jam estos forinta ĝis tiam.
2. He will have eaten lunch by now = Li plej verŝajne jam tagmanĝis. (I think the 'by now' is kind of needless within the context)
3. I would have jumped higher if I were you. = Mi saltus tiam pli alte, se mi estus vi / Mi estus saltinta pli alte, se mi estus vi. (the 'tiam' helps indicate that you're talking about the past, and again context helps)
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 20 באפריל 2011, 22:59:28
I presume the meaning is 'Mi estus saltinta pli alte en via loko/situacio'.
Among some Esperantists there is a prejudice against flagging the past with conditional forms, but personally I would always use '-us inta' or '-intus' for clarity.
Chainy (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 05:57:20
sudanglo:I'm afraid that for my British English ear 'I would have jumped higher if I were you' is not well-formed.So, what would you prefer, maybe '..if I had been you'? But, I think people often use 'if I were' you in informal speech to cover various situations.
sudanglo:I presume the meaning is 'Mi estus saltinta pli alte en via loko/situacio'.yes, I also thought about using something along the lines of 'en via loko'. In Russian, for example, you'd put it like that. But then, I thought, why not say "se mi estus vi"? - this seems to work fine in Esperanto, I wonder if anyone could misunderstand this?
sudanglo:Among some Esperantists there is a prejudice against flagging the past with conditional forms, but personally I would always use '-us inta' or '-intus' for clarity.I wouldn't say there's a 'prejudice' against using '-us inta' or '-intus', in fact I come across them very often. I just think there are various ways of doing it in Esperanto, and people are free to choose their own way. Sometimes one will seem to fit better for some reason or other, if for no other reason than some subjective preference.
I'm ok with the idea of saying 'mi saltus tiam...' instead of 'mi estus saltinta...', but this is probably the influence of Russian on me. You absolutely have to remember those little words such as 'tiam', 'jam' etc... to make it clear. But, in some cases I do indeed use '-us inta' etc, why not?!
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 10:14:49
Perhaps the most natural thing in English is just to stress the 'I' and not add any qualifying subclause, or to add an equivalent to 'en via loko'.
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 10:25:20
Here the first '-us' refers to the future, the second to the present.
In mi estus aĉetinta novan aŭton se mi havus la monon, it seems unnecessary to flag the past in the second '-us', since not having the money now is not usually an explanation of not being able to afford a new car in the past.
However, personally I'm quite happy with double '-us inta'.
ceigered (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 10:39:20
sudanglo:And also Tom, as having a future reference - Mi aĉetus novan aŭton se mi havus la monon.This isn't so much grammatical as it is a logical flow of actions - as normally you'd need money to buy a car.
Here the first '-us' refers to the future, the second to the present.
However, it could actually be interpreted as the first -us referring to a future action, and the second referring to an action even further in the future relative to the first one.
For example, someone might have some sort of crazy credit card or loan that allows them to buy a car without the money, but they're saying that they'll only buy the car if they are sure they'll be getting money later down the track to pay it of. Or maybe they're buying the car and importing it for someone, in which case they'll only buy it if it is a fact that their buyer will pay them for it all.
Thus the context is what provides the future/past, rather than it being part of the grammar.
But anyway, I agree with what you've said. Once you've somehow clarified whether we're talking about the past or future, there's little need unless you've got one of the above circumstances to worry about reinforcing that information, and I think ultimately it shouldn't matter provided it all makes sense
Kirilo81 (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 11:31:41
ceigered:Mi aĉetus la aŭton, se mi estus havonta monon. would be the right expression for that.
For example, someone might have some sort of crazy credit card or loan that allows them to buy a car without the money, but they're saying that they'll only buy the car if they are sure they'll be getting money later down the track to pay it of. Or maybe they're buying the car and importing it for someone, in which case they'll only buy it if it is a fact that their buyer will pay them for it all.
Again: X-intus in no way should trigger an interpretation as past tense, as anteriority may lie in the future: Se mi estus ricevinta mian honorarion jam morgaŭ, jam postmorgaŭ mi aĉetus novan aŭton.
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 12:33:10
Kirilo81:Again: X-intus in no way should trigger an interpretation as past tenseExcept that it does.
The reason it doesn't in your phrase is because you're using "morgaŭ". Without such a word to pinpoint the time of "estus" it will surely be interpreted as a past conditional. You can argue whether that's a good or a bad thing, but personally I don't see the point. Can we not just let the language be what it is?
Kirilo81 (הצגת פרופיל) 21 באפריל 2011, 13:46:03
tommjames:Can we not just let the language be what it is?We can't, if it would contradict the Fundamento, which defines what is correct Esperanto. For that reason e.g. far is never acceptable.
I don't want to draw heady (? = tro fruajn) conclusions, there's need for an examination whether the use of X-intus with exclusive past reading breaks a rule or not.