Ujumbe: 46
Lugha: English
Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 3:45:28 alasiri
sudanglo:..min atakatan .. lin kuŝantan..The unusual feature may be that a participial adjective is associated with a direct object which is a pronoun, rather than an impersonal thing. That may be purely a matter of infrequent usage. Since William Auld is the author of the translation, I'm not minded to regard them as dubious.
Do these also strike you as unusual?
sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 5:11:17 alasiri
So just as you might say 'por defendi min, okaze de atako.'
'Por defendi min atakate' might imply that you were already being attacked. However, maybe, 'por defendi min, se atakate' would work.
In the case of the second Auld'a frazo, aplying the normal rule would mean that the piedsigno was kuŝanta not li.
This would obviously be a strange idea, but with a different subject, as in the sentence 'La mortinto apudis lin, kuŝante en tordita pozo', you would have an intelligible idea.
Most people, I think, would interpret that as meaning the dead person was in the twisted pose not the other party.
T0dd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 7:14:49 alasiri
sudanglo:Todd, I have occasionally thought that it might be possible to use an adverbial participle circumstantially, without it necessarily referring back to the subject (the usual interpretation of an adverbial participle)Yes, I think you're right. Auld's way is better. The more I think about what's unusual about the construction, it's the use of adjectives with pronouns, as Miland said, but not so much the fact that the pronoun is a direct object. In English, we just don't apply adjectives to pronouns very much, if ever. I don't know if other languages do.
So just as you might say 'por defendi min, okaze de atako.'
'Por defendi min atakate' might imply that you were already being attacked. However, maybe, 'por defendi min, se atakate' would work.
In the case of the second Auld'a frazo, aplying the normal rule would mean that the piedsigno was kuŝanta not li.
Example:
Pigra mi ne farbis la muron.
The closest we might come to that in English is the rather folksy, "Lazy me, I didn't paint the wall." But as far as I can tell there's nothing stopping anyone from using the above Esperanto sentence, which does not have the same meaning as,
Pigre, mi ne farbis la muron.
In fact, until you pointed out Auld's passages, it would never have occurred to me to use any kind of adjectives with pronouns. So, to express the idea of this sentence, I would have resorted to something like,
Ĉar mi estas pigra, mi ne farbis la muron.
But Auld's way is much more econommical. The question is whether it is too odd to be readily understood.
Altebrilas (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 8:04:34 alasiri
"Paresseux, je n'ai pas repeint le mur"
We need a comma, because it is another proposition whose verb is implied.
I think it is the same en esperanto:
Pigra, mi ne farbis la muron.
"pigra" rilatas al "mi", do adjektivo.
I wouldn't write:
Pigre, mi ne farbis la muron
because it would mean that it is the event which is lazy and it wouldn't work.
For comparison:
Kompreneble, mi ne farbis la muron
Felicxe, mi ne farbis la muron
Rogir (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 9:18:46 alasiri
Chainy (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 2 Juni 2011 10:27:56 alasiri
Rogir:No, you do not use commas in Esperanto at those places. Esperanto is not French, and neither is it English.Thank you for the very useful information about Esperanto not being French or English. I was a little uncertain on this matter before you clarified the situation for us.
However, as far as I'm aware, the rules for commas in Esperanto are in fact rather flexible. I often see them used in slightly different ways, in fact check out what PMEG says on the matter:
helposignoj
ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Juni 2011 3:28:26 asubuhi
Rogir:No, you do not use commas in Esperanto at those places. Esperanto is not French, and neither is it English.Since EO is predominately international though, I reckon if that is understandable enough it doesn't matter whether a frenchman says it or not.
I thought it's pretty cool way of denoting a semantic subject over a grammatical one
(I'd say Pigre, mi ne farbis la muron though because I don't believe the event has any reason to be described except through the action recorded).
sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Juni 2011 9:01:36 asubuhi
Mi trovis la vinon bona - mi trovis ĝin bona.
Mi trovis la homon kuŝanta sub mia lito - mi trovis lin kuŝanta sub mia lito.
The strangeness is perhaps more associated with the case agreement.
Whilst 'Mi vidis ilin forirantaj' seems normal, perhaps 'Mi vidis ilin forirantajn' is strange.
Whereas, 'mi observis la homon starantan ĉe la angulo de la strato' is permissible.
sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Juni 2011 9:31:30 asubuhi
Nomally, there aren't two sorts of 'mi' or 'ŝi' though they may be many ways of describing a 'homo' or a 'virino'.
So pure adjective use to qualify a pronoun is strange.
I wouldn't say 'la alta mi' or 'la altan min' (adventures in Wonderland excepted).
This is perhaps why one instinctively rejects 'Mi nuda farbis la muron', preferring 'Nude mi farbis la muron' as you would say 'Ne observite, mi kovris la muron per fi-vortoj'.
Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 3 Juni 2011 11:42:14 asubuhi
sudanglo:Whilst 'Mi vidis ilin forirantaj' seems normal, perhaps 'Mi vidis ilin forirantajn' is strange.The element of time in my view introduces a subtle distinction between the two. The first focusses on fact and so means "I saw that they were running", i.e. Mi vidis ke ili estas* forirantaj, while the second focusses on time and means "I saw them while they were running", Mi vidis ilin dum ili estis forirantaj.
*cf. PMEG (para immediately after the second box, vidi being the relevant verb).