Postitused: 46
Keel: English
T0dd (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 19:20.11
sudanglo:But Todd, we do use adjectives with pronouns, and also adjectival participles.Indeed, but in cases such as these there is elision of esti.
Mi trovis la vinon bona - mi trovis ĝin bona.
Mi trovis la homon kuŝanta sub mia lito - mi trovis lin kuŝanta sub mia lito.
Mi trovis la vinon (esti) bona....and so on.
Now consider the following pair of sentences:
Mi aĉetis botelon da vino. Ĝi ruĝa havas dolĉan guston.
I don't believe I've ever seen that construction, but I can't think of any logical reason to forbid it, nor does it violate any grammatical rule of Esperanto that I know of. It's just odd.
Is the second sentence well-formed or not?
Miland (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 20:00.19
T0dd:I believe that should be La ruĝa, ktp.
Mi aĉetis botelon da vino. Ĝi ruĝa havas dolĉan guston.
.. well-formed or not?
T0dd:I can't think of any logical reason to forbid itHere's one:
T0dd:I don't believe I've ever seen that construction..That's one. And here's another: I've never seen it either!
(The logic is: if it were good Esperanto, you (or I) would probably have come across something similar by now.)
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 20:16.58
I think it may have something to do with the identifying funtion of a pronoun (this person or thing previously mentioned, or obvious from the situation).
Incidentally, it occurs to me that you don't say tio ruĝa while you can say tiu ruĝa, and the explanation for that may be along the same lines as the reason for not saying things like 'Ĝi ruĝa havas bonan guston'.
In 'mi trovis ĝin bona' the bona doesn't serve to distinguish one sort of 'ĝi' from another. The identifying function has already been performed by the pronoun. I don't need to tell you which 'it' I am talking about. But I am saying something further about my relation to 'it'
However when I say 'ruĝa vino estas ĉiam bongusta', I am distinguishing one sort of wine from other sorts of wine, identifying the wine I am talking about.
So I think there is some sort of logic, even if I have not formulated in the clearest fashion.
As regard Auld's usage, I am a bit undecided as to whether this is a welcome extension of the structural possibilities, or something slightly novel but congruent with established usage, or what - I need to mull it over.
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 20:49.51
The complication is that there is a history of authors pushing the boundaries, exploring possibilities latent in Esperanto.
And we can't be absolutely certain that this process has come to an end.
Maybe the Auld'aj frazoj have potential, are imitindaj - though I would bridle at Mi/li/ĝi X-a Y-as as a standard pattern.
I'm OK however with 'Zamenhof, naskita en 1859, estis la unua persono kiu, ...'
Miland (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 21:29.10
sudanglo:I'm OK however with 'Zamenhof, naskita en 1859, estis la unua persono kiu, ...'Ah, the commas put it in a different light. Ĝi, ruĝa, havas dolĉan guston looks a lot better. To paraphrase Ray Mears, a little punctuation can go a long way.
erinja (Näita profiili) 3. juuni 2011 22:16.32
"Ĝi, estante ruĝa, havas dolĉan guston" (though this implies that the sweet taste is an expected result of the thing being red. This assumption/implication would be correct in some contexts and not others)
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 11:25.46
I would reject BOTH Ĝi, ruĝa, havas bonan guston AND Li, naskita en 1859, estis la unua kiu ...'.
As regards an adjectival participle in the accusative following a pronoun, I am now inclined to accept this, if the situation or context helps you to see it with the 'kiam' meaning.
So, Mi laste vidis mian koramikon forirantan en la trajno AND Mi laste vidis ŝin forirantan en la trajno.
Mi vidis ŝin foiranta kaj tio estis la lasta okazo kiam mi vidis ŝin.
Contrast this with Mi laste vidis ŝin fumanta sabaton la 21-an. The last time I saw her smoking a cigarette was on the 21st.
With plain 'Mi vidis ilin forirantajn', I hesitate. Though perhaps if there is enough situational determination to see it as 'dum ili foriras' it is OK.
So, you can't just say that it is the pronoun which makes adjectival determination wrong.
I find myself still undecided about Auld's apudis lin kuŝantan.
Miland (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 11:33.33
sudanglo:I would reject ..'Ĝi, ruĝa, havas bona guston'..As indeed you should, since the adjective does not have the accusative, in agreement with the object.
sudanglo:..AND 'Li, naskita en 1859, estis la unua kiu ...'.Those are all right with me. Subkomprenataj vortoj are often a matter of style.
I find myself still undecided about Auld's apudis lin kuŝantan.
sudanglo (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 11:36.39
Altebrilas (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 13:36.03
sudanglo:But Todd, we do use adjectives with pronouns, and also adjectival participles.The meaning is different.
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.
...
Mi trovis la vinon bona (laux mia opinio, gxi bongustas)
Mi trovis la vinon bonan (kiun mian patron zorge kasxis antaux la boteloj de ordinara vino)
Mi trovis la homon kuŝanta sub mia lito (mi sercxis homon; mi trovis ke li estis kusxanta sub mia lito)
Mi trovis la homon kuŝantan sub mia lito (mi sciis, ke homo kusxas sub mia lito; mi trovis lin)
The syntactic tree is different, too.