Sisu juurde
Vasta

Using participles as verbs?

kelle poolt Echo49, 4. juuni 2011

Postitused: 34

Keel: English

Echo49 (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 13:08.27

I've been wondering why you need an auxiliary verb (i.e., "esti") when using complex verbs. Theoretically couldn't you conjugate the participle directly?

e.g.,
estas amanta => amantas
estos aminta => amintos

(Note I'm asking this just for curiosity's sake - this has been sitting in my head for a while now.)

Altebrilas (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 13:20.28

Por mi, jes. Participaj sufiksoj funkcias kiel aliaj.

geo63 (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 13:46.28

Echo49:I've been wondering why you need an aŭiliary verb (i.e., "esti") when using complex verbs. Theoretically couldn't you conjugate the participle directly?

e.g.,
estas amanta => amantas
estos aminta => amintos

(Note I'm asking this just for curiosity's sake - this has been sitting in my head for a while now.)
Verbs are not complex in esperanto. Generally a participle is an adjective, so you connect it with the subject with "esti":

kuŝanta < adjectival participle

vi estas kuŝanta (kia vi estas?)

bela <- adjective

vi estas bela (kia vi estas?)

So I am not very fond of this -antas, -intas, -ontas... I prefer a clear, easily understandable, classic form. Think, if you can avoid the participle:

li estas amanta sian filon -> li amas sian filon.

li estos aminta sian filon -> li jam amos sian filon.

Echo49 (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 14:14.13

I know that in Esperanto you'd prefer "amas" over "estas amanta", but is there a reason to use "estas amanta" instead of a more concise "amantas"? Is "amantas" just wrong? Or is there something more to it?

Miland (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 14:29.12

Echo49:Theoretically couldn't you conjugate the participle directly?
e.g.,
estas amanta => amantas
estos aminta => amintos
You could, but separating esti from participial adjectives may often be easier to understand. In fact simple forms like amas may well be adequate for most practical purposes.

geo63 (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 16:47.10

Echo49:I know that in Esperanto you'd prefer "amas" over "estas amanta", but is there a reason to use "estas amanta" instead of a more concise "amantas"? Is "amantas" just wrong? Or is there something more to it?
I don't use this form. I treat it as some kind of linguistic eccentricity. Since the esti + ...ant/int/ont|a form is difficult enough to understand, even harder is this -anatas/intas/ontas. If you like them, use them - but be prepared to explain what you mean. Participle form can be useful when you want to place an action in some point of time:

Je la dua horo mi estos trinkinta kafon.

Roberto12 (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 20:48.21

Echo49:estas amanta => amantas
estos aminta => amintos
As other repliers have said, they're legal but they're harder to process in realtime than the separate forms.

I personally like to think that "estas amanta" is equivalent to "amas", because there is only one passive version, namely "estas amata". If the two present forms were subtly different, then a distinction would exist in the active mood that doesn't exist in the passive mood, which to me would be a rotten asymmetry.

sudanglo (Näita profiili) 4. juuni 2011 21:41.44

Echo, as a matter of usage these collapsed forms seem to be mainly used with povi and devi in the conditional form.

So you will see mi povintus instead mi estus povinta, and mi devintus instead of mi estus devinta.

I vaguely recall seeing some argument that in the case of devi there is a subtle distinction in meaning beteen the two forms.

Mi estus devinta, the devo is linked to the past - mi devintus diri tion could stand for mi devus esti dirinta tion. Or something like that, my recollection isn't clear.

Estus estinta is a bit of a mouthful and might lend itself to being contracted.

Robert, with other verbs there can be a distinction between the compound version esti+participle and the simple form.

Ĉu vi fumas is not quite the same as ĉu vi estas fumanta, the latter is more specific.

And any asymmetry doesn't have to be 'rotten'. Ata/it/ota have their own meanings and don't have to be simply passive tranformations of some active form. Or perhaps I misunderstand your point.

Mustelvulpo (Näita profiili) 5. juuni 2011 2:52.08

When you say things in such a way that the listener has to stop and puzzle out what you're trying to say, communication will be lost. Amantas, amantis, amantos, amintas, amintis, amintos, amontas, amontis, amontos (and then do the list again with the -at, -it, -ot forms)- to me is one such puzzle. To me (and probably to many others) they are much harder to quickly understand than the "esti __" forms. I see them as the Puzzle of the Dueling Suffixes.

henma (Näita profiili) 5. juuni 2011 3:13.47

Mustelvulpo:When you say things in such a way that the listener has to stop and puzzle out what you're trying to say, communication will be lost. Amantas, amantis, amantos, amintas, amintis, amintos, amontas, amontis, amontos (and then do the list again with the -at, -it, -ot forms)- to me is one such puzzle. To me (and probably to many others) they are much harder to quickly understand than the "esti __" forms. I see them as the Puzzle of the Dueling Suffixes.
Yea, you have to think too much to decrypt the message... It reminds me a little of Volapük verbs lango.gif.

Amike,

Daniel.

Tagasi üles