Kodegadulo:

darkweasel:

cFlat7:Ah, so that could give us, "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝas"... nice.

which means "it is not getting better yet".

Then how about this: "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝintas." Is that legitimate?

Legitimate yes, but what’s wrong with the much more commonly used pliboniĝis?

darkweasel:

Kodegadulo:

darkweasel:

cFlat7:Ah, so that could give us, "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝas"... nice.

which means "it is not getting better yet".

Then how about this: "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝintas." Is that legitimate?

Legitimate yes, but what’s wrong with the much more commonly used pliboniĝis?

I think it's because the way you wrote "which means" at first glance looks like you're telling cFlat7 his thing is wrong rather than affirming his statement

(for what it's worth, pliboniĝintas is too much linguistic maths though - you have to figure out what tense applies to what.)

ceigered:

darkweasel:

Kodegadulo:

darkweasel:

cFlat7:Ah, so that could give us, "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝas"... nice.

which means "it is not getting better yet".

Then how about this: "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝintas." Is that legitimate?

Legitimate yes, but what’s wrong with the much more commonly used pliboniĝis?

I think it's because the way you wrote "which means" at first glance looks like you're telling cFlat7 his thing is wrong rather than affirming his statement

Well, yes and no; after all, the original question was about "it is not any better (yet)", not "it is not getting better".

darkweasel:

Kodegadulo:Then how about this: "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝintas." Is that legitimate?

Legitimate yes, but what’s wrong with the much more commonly used pliboniĝis?

I interpret "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝis." to mean "It didn't get any better yet." or "It wasn't getting any better yet." That describes a situation in the past.

What I was going for was "It hasn't gotten any better yet." (Equivalent to "Ankoraŭ ne estas pliboniĝinta.") That describes a situation in the present resulting from action in the past (or in this case, lack of action). What I was wondering was whether it is legitimate to replace "estas pliboniĝinta" with "pliboniĝintas".

Kodegadulo:
I interpret "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝis." to mean "It didn't get any better yet." or "It wasn't getting any better yet." That describes a situation in the past.

If you want to take an Esperanto statement in the past tense and turn it into the present tense, all you have to do is change the "-is" to an "-as".

Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝas, as cFlat7 suggested.

Kodegadulo:What I was wondering was whether it is legitimate to replace "estas pliboniĝinta" with "pliboniĝintas".

"Pliboniĝinta" itself is needlessly complex; the verbal form even more so. So, yes, you can do it. But why would you want to?

As a more general point, adjective to verb transformations are common. Estas [ROOT]a may be expressed as [ROOT]as. Some say that this also implies some kind of (though perhaps very minimal) action on the part of the subject that isn't evident in the adjectival phrasing, which is purely passive.

darkweasel:Well, yes and no; after all, the original question was about "it is not any better (yet)", not "it is not getting better".

Ah, ok. Well yeah, what you said before. Sorry about that, I seem to be reading all your messages strangely these days! Must be your avatar sending subliminal messages to my mind...

Kodegadulo:
I interpret "Ankoraŭ ne pliboniĝis." to mean "It didn't get any better yet." or "It wasn't getting any better yet." That describes a situation in the past.

Both interpretations are valid. In Esperanto, like in many languages, there is no grammatical difference between past tense and present perfect tense.

Kodegadulo:What I was wondering was whether it is legitimate to replace "estas pliboniĝinta" with "pliboniĝintas".

Yes, it definitely is legitimate. However I wouldn’t even say *ankoraŭ ne estas pliboniĝinta because there you have an adjective that relates to nothing. You can say ĝi ankoraŭ ne estas pliboniĝinta or ankoraŭ ne estas pliboniĝinte.

However, as I have said, you can also use pliboniĝis, in 90% of the contexts it’s clear that it must be interpreted as a present perfect tense, not as a past tense. (In fact distinguishing these two tenses is one of the more difficult things for German speakers to learn in English.)

Tip for non-native speakers of English re. present perfect. Don't consider whether the action is in the past but whether the time frame reference is located in the past.

So say 'Have you seen Susan?' when the time frame under consideration is simply before now.

Use 'Did you see Susan?' when you have in mind some occasion in the past (separate from now), eg did you see Susan at last night's party, when you were in London etc.

As sudanglo says, in English the simple past ("I saw her.") and the present perfect ("I have seen her.") are very different beasts. The past imperfect/continuous ("I was seeing her."/ "I used to see her.") is something else again. I've studied Modern Greek and Spanish, and they both have similar tenses to these, all distinct.

Now, I have been under the impression that Esperanto "-is" corresponds to simple past, "estas -inta" to present perfect, and "estis -anta" to past imperfect/continuous. But perhaps I'm just projecting my native English template onto Esperanto.

The question is, those of you who are advising me that a simple "-is" can be used in a present perfect sense, is that actually Zamenhofian usage, or are you just projecting your own native language templates onto Esperanto?

Edit: P.S. You can even construct a past prospective tense in English. That's where you refer to an occasion in the past during which you were planning to do something, or anticipating something happening, later, e.g. "I was about to see her." "I was going to see her." I interpret Esperanto's "estis -onta" as this kind of tense.

Kodegadulo:Now, I have been under the impression that Esperanto "-is" corresponds to simple past, "estas -inta" to present perfect, and "estis -anta" to past imperfect/continuous. But perhaps I'm just projecting my native English template onto Esperanto.

The question is, those of you who are advising me that a simple "-is" can be used in a present perfect sense, is that actually Zamenhofian usage, or are you just projecting your own native language templates onto Esperanto?

Simple verb forms are considered to be good form in Esperanto. Good form isn't influenced by national origin. Indeed, if something is written in good Esperanto, it's normally impossible to guess what language the writer speaks natively, because you wouldn't expect the writing to contain any obvious influences of the writer's native language.

Yes, -is can be used in the present perfect sense, and Zamenhof did use it that way. It's important to note, of course, that Zamenhof is not the only person whose style is considered worthy of imitating. There are several early Esperanto writers whose style still influences the way we talk today.

Of course you CAN produce complex tenses using participles, as you note, and you guessed correctly in your statement about how present perfect and past continuous would be rendered in Esperanto.

But in Esperanto good style is to use these forms only minimally. We use them only when we want to emphasize the importance of an event occurring at a very specific time or in a very specific sequence. In everyday speech, these things are normally not very important, and we use simple tenses plus time words or other modifiers to indicate timing.

I used to see her, for example, could be "mi fojfoje vidis ŝin". "I had seen her" could be "mi jam vidis ŝin"

It would depend a lot on context and on the rest of what you wanted to say. But you would be surprised at the nuances of tense that can be expressed with only simple verb forms.

I do think you are influenced by English. It is hard to go from a language with a wide range of tenses to one with very simple tenses. You get an uncomfortable feeling that you aren't expressing yourself well because too much information is being left out.

However I assure you that this isn't the case. Context tells the listener a lot, and context and modifier words are far more powerful than you think. Over-use of specific verb tenses would mark you out as an ill-informed beginner who is translating too literally from his native language, who lacks the capability to discern when it is necessary or not necessary to give an extremely exact tense.