Więcej

Language question

od nw2394, 19 grudnia 2006

Wpisy: 9

Język: English

nw2394 (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 01:05:04

I did some lessons on this site. I don't understand the replies I got. And I think I am more likely to understand if I ask about this in English (if someone more expert than can spare the time to explain, please)...

The exercise asked
> 1) Kion faras la amiko kiun Ana renkontis?

To which I replied
> La amiko de Ana studas komputikon. Ŝajne li ŝatas ĝin.

And this was corrected to
> 1. Ŝajnas, ke li ŝatas tion.

Why? What is wrong with "Ŝajne li ŝatas ĝin."?

The exercise asked.
> 3) Ĉu vi ŝatas sidi en kafejo? Kion vi kutime faras en kafejo?

To which I replied
> Kutime, mi ne iras al kafejo (en Britio). Oni volas trinki kafon, mi supozas, sed mi preferas teon. En kafejoj en Aŭstrio (kie mi vizitas mian amikojn), kutime ni trinkas biernon (aŭ bierojn). Pli bona.

And I got back
3. Pli bone. / Tio estas pli bona.

Why is "pli bone" better than "pli bona"? I got corrected for using an adverb before, now I use an adjective and someone thinks I should use an adverb. What is going on?

The next part asked:
> 2) Kion la patrino de Ana ne povas kompreni pri Ana?

To which I replied:
> Ŝi ne komprenas tion Ana ne ŝatas lingvojn kaj preferas sportumi.

And I got back:
> 2. Ŝi ne komprenas, ke Ana...

Don't understand. tion/ke. Uh. Thought kompreni was transitive. If one reorders the sentence to, "Ana ne ŝatas lingvojn kaj preferas sportumi kaj ŝi (patrino) ne komprenas tion", surely that is OK. So what is wrong with tion in the first sentence?

Nick

awake (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 03:05:45

I'm going to answer more than your question, and hope that I also answer it in the process. Several of the T-table words allow for very specific shades of meaning.

Consider

Tia hundo estas eta. = that kind of dog is tiny. (or perhaps less literally that breed of dog is tiny)

Tiu hundo estas eta = that dog (the specific dog Im pointing to) is tiny. It's a bit clumsy, you don't literally have to be pointing at the thing you are talking about, but It really helped me to think of tiu as a "pointing adjective" and to think of tia as a more general kind of adjective (if that makes sense).

Now, getting closer to your question

tio estas hundo. = that thing (the one I'm pointing to) is a dog. It helped me to think of tio as a "pointing noun" Generally tio is reserved for objects that arent named. That is, tio is used by itself as a noun, and tiu is used as an adjective to describe noun (even if that noun is "understood") What do I mean by "understood?" just that it isnt mentioned.

En kiu domo li loĝas? Tiu!. In which house does he live? That (house)! (the one I'm pointing to).

ke, is a conjunction. it connects two clauses together

Mi pensas, ke vi estas inteligenta. = I think, that you are smart.

Mi audis, ke ŝi foriris. = I heard, that she went away.

Mi kredos, ke homo povas flugi. I will believe, that a man can fly.

etc....

anyway, I hope that's of some help. ridulo.gif

nw2394:

The next part asked:
> 2) Kion la patrino de Ana ne povas kompreni pri Ana?

To which I replied:
> Ŝi ne komprenas tion Ana ne ŝatas lingvojn kaj preferas sportumi.

And I got back:
> 2. Ŝi ne komprenas, ke Ana...

Don't understand. tion/ke. Uh. Thought kompreni was transitive. If one reorders the sentence to, "Ana ne ŝatas lingvojn kaj preferas sportumi kaj ŝi (patrino) ne komprenas tion", surely that is OK. So what is wrong with tion in the first sentence?

Nick

nw2394 (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 10:36:43

awake:I'm going to answer more than your question, and hope that I also answer it in the process. Several of the T-table words allow for very specific shades of meaning....
Well thanks. I understand the words you say, but for some reason they don't make a tune. It is not your explanation that is the problem and I thank you for your efforts. It is, probably, more that I don't see the need for the distinction between all these kinds of "that".

T0dd (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 15:34:06

nw2394:I did some lessons on this site. I don't understand the replies I got. And I think I am more likely to understand if I ask about this in English (if someone more expert than can spare the time to explain, please)...

The exercise asked
> 1) Kion faras la amiko kiun Ana renkontis?

To which I replied
> La amiko de Ana studas komputikon. Ŝajne li ŝatas ĝin.

And this was corrected to
> 1. Ŝajnas, ke li ŝatas tion.

Why? What is wrong with "Ŝajne li ŝatas ĝin."?
I would say that "Ŝajne li ŝatas ĝin" means "Seemingly, he likes it," whereas "Ŝajnas, ke li ŝatas ĝin" means "It seems that he likes it." Is there a slight difference of nuance? I think "seemingly" adds an accent of doubt, as if the appearance is one thing, but the reality might be something else. "It seems that" sounds more straightforward; you are simply saying how it looks to you. In fact, the "ŝajnas" construction is often rendered "ŝajnas al mi".

That said, I'd accept either as a plausible answer to the question.
The exercise asked.
> 3) Ĉu vi ŝatas sidi en kafejo? Kion vi kutime faras en kafejo?

To which I replied
> Kutime, mi ne iras al kafejo (en Britio). Oni volas trinki kafon, mi supozas, sed mi preferas teon. En kafejoj en Aŭstrio (kie mi vizitas mian amikojn), kutime ni trinkas biernon (aŭ bierojn). Pli bona.

And I got back
3. Pli bone. / Tio estas pli bona.

Why is "pli bone" better than "pli bona"? I got corrected for using an adverb before, now I use an adjective and someone thinks I should use an adverb. What is going on?
This is a case of an unfortunate, in my opinion, construction in Esperanto. If you want to say "It's interesting that you are studying Esperanto," you'd say "Estas interese, ke vi studas Esperanton." Note that you use the adverb instead of the adjective. In English, we use adjectives in this situation, because the "it" in "it's" functions as a kind of "dummy noun." In Esperanto there's no dummy noun, and an adverb is used. Although your answer isn't in fact a sentence, it reads as a truncated version of "It's better" which would be "Estas pli bone." But if you were actually to put a (pro)noun in there, such as "tio", then of course you'd use the adjective. "Tio estas pli bona."

I call this constrution unfortunate because I think all these constructions could be read as having an elided "that". For example, it's perfectly good Esperanto to say "Tio estas interesa, ke vi studas Esperanton." In my opinion, we should be allowed to say "Estas interesa, ke..." where it is understood as a shortened form of "Tio estas interesa, ke..." But we're not. If you submitted something like that to an editor for publication, it would be changed.
The next part asked:
> 2) Kion la patrino de Ana ne povas kompreni pri Ana?

To which I replied:
> Ŝi ne komprenas tion Ana ne ŝatas lingvojn kaj preferas sportumi.

And I got back:
> 2. Ŝi ne komprenas, ke Ana...

Don't understand. tion/ke.
"Tion" is a demonstrative pronoun. "Ke" is a subordinating conjunction. They have nothing to do with each other, and it's an unfortunate coincidence that in English these two words are homophones.

Frankouche (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 20:08:58

it's perfectly good Esperanto to say "Tio estas...
I wonder, how we should say : "it's that " (or "that's it", i don't see the difference very well, i mean "c'est ça/cela" in french) ? :

- Tio estas tio (stranga)
- Gxi estas tio
- Tio estas gxi
- Tioigxas (!?)
- Tio estas tion (false but i never understood very well this story about verbs without object "state verbs", i feel it as a regrettable exception)

Else, it's true that without the first "tio", it's seems better. I regulary use this grammatical construction without subject.

Novico Dektri (Pokaż profil) 19 grudnia 2006, 20:17:28

Frankouche:
it's perfectly good Esperanto to say "Tio estas...
I wonder, how we should say : "it's that " (or "that's it", i don't see the difference very well, i mean "c'est ça/cela" in french) ? :

- Tio estas tio (stranga)
- Gxi estas tio
- Tio estas gxi
- Tioigxas (!?)
- Tio estas tion (false but i never understood very well this story about verbs without object "state verbs", i feel it as a regrettable exception)

Else, it's true that without the first "tio", it's seems better. I regulary use this grammatical construction without subject.
My guess would simply by "estas tio".

T0dd (Pokaż profil) 20 grudnia 2006, 01:30:39

"C'est ça"....Hmmmm, it's very idiomatic, very French. The way I remember it, the expression "c'est ça" is used not to indicate or point out anything but as an all-purpose expression of affirmation or agreement, roughly analogous to the way "right!" is used in English. In that sense, I think "Ĝuste" is the best Esperanto equivalent.

nw2394 (Pokaż profil) 20 grudnia 2006, 01:32:07

Thanks for the explanations Todd

Nick

Frankouche (Pokaż profil) 20 grudnia 2006, 23:25:37

Todd, "C'est ça/cela" in french can mean almenaux two things :

-1 "That's right", so gxuste as "précisément" may be correct as you have said. Thanks for this useful word. okulumo.gif
-2 A thing, an object, an idea about we are speaking or showing.

Funny to see that in the same sentence, the both meanings could be said :

- C'est ça?.........(Cxu) estas tio?
- Oui, c'est ça!....Jes, gxuste!

Wróć do góry