Mesaĝoj: 129
Lingvo: English
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-08 18:56:58
Here are some of the mnemonics I used to learn the correlatives. These aren't rules. They aren't even necessarily 100% accurate. They're just help-things.
"K" words are the "kwestion" words. I don't have a mnemonic for the T words that answer them.
"Kiel" means, more or less, the word "like". "Kiel" is an anagram of "like".
-iam: "am" is one of the time periods (am\pm). These are time words.
-iu: These either refer to a person, or an object named in that sentence. Not in an earlier sentence. Not in a later sentence. That sentence. I think of the ending "u" as rhyming with "who" as the mnemonic.
-io: These are super-similar to the previous, but refer to things unnamed in that sentence (and never people). You can also use "tio" if the sentence is being used to name the thing. "Tio estas kato. Tiu kato estas bela. Tio ankaŭ ronronas." No mnemonic here. Just rote memorization.
-iom: The mnemonic here is a personal one relating to something I encountered in my youth called an "Om-Circle", which is basically a group of people standing in a large circle - generally at sunset - with their arms embracing the shoulders of their immediate neighbors and chanting "Om" in long, drawn out tones. For me, the "wide embrace" part of that image suggests the "quantities" implied by the -iom words in a kind of "the fish was thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big" kind of way. Since this is based on a personal experience, your mileage may vary with this image.
-ies: I don't really use it much, so I just remember it as one of the ones I don't have a mnemonic for.
Those are what's helped me. Again, ymmv.
Also, I remember them being confusing and identical looking clear up until one day they weren't. Practice makes better.
"K" words are the "kwestion" words. I don't have a mnemonic for the T words that answer them.
"Kiel" means, more or less, the word "like". "Kiel" is an anagram of "like".
-iam: "am" is one of the time periods (am\pm). These are time words.
-iu: These either refer to a person, or an object named in that sentence. Not in an earlier sentence. Not in a later sentence. That sentence. I think of the ending "u" as rhyming with "who" as the mnemonic.
-io: These are super-similar to the previous, but refer to things unnamed in that sentence (and never people). You can also use "tio" if the sentence is being used to name the thing. "Tio estas kato. Tiu kato estas bela. Tio ankaŭ ronronas." No mnemonic here. Just rote memorization.
-iom: The mnemonic here is a personal one relating to something I encountered in my youth called an "Om-Circle", which is basically a group of people standing in a large circle - generally at sunset - with their arms embracing the shoulders of their immediate neighbors and chanting "Om" in long, drawn out tones. For me, the "wide embrace" part of that image suggests the "quantities" implied by the -iom words in a kind of "the fish was thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big" kind of way. Since this is based on a personal experience, your mileage may vary with this image.
-ies: I don't really use it much, so I just remember it as one of the ones I don't have a mnemonic for.
Those are what's helped me. Again, ymmv.
Also, I remember them being confusing and identical looking clear up until one day they weren't. Practice makes better.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-08 20:09:24
The accustive of direction sounds more complicated than it is.
In Esperanto, you can replace the word "al" (to) with the accusative case. That's all that's happening here.
En la ĉambro = In the room
En la ĉambron = Into the room.
Instead of translating "into" as "en al", the "al" part gets turned into the accusative case and tacked onto the noun. That's it.
You can make the "al-to-accusative" transformation pretty much across the board in Esperanto, except in one place where it could be confusing: you should not use the accusative case on the indirect object. If you have a sentence with a direct object and an indirect object ("I gave the book to the clerk"), and you turned that "to" into an "-n", you'd end up with two words in a row with an -n on the end, and it would become unclear which was direct and which was indirect (am I giving the book to the clerk, or the clerk to the book?). Pretty much everywhere else it's fair game, though.
Because I feel that the accusative case is a little overloaded in Esperanto, I tend to avoid the "al-to-accusative" transformations in most places, however, except when turning words like "in" (en) into "into" (which isn't an individual Esperanto word; you must use the accusative of direction to express it). Otherwise if my sentences need an "al" in them, they generally get an "al" and not an accusative replacement. I can't tell you how many times I've stared at a noun in the accusative case following an intransitive verb and just did. not. get. it. for a moment until realizing "oh, it's not marking the direct object - of which there is none - it's doing this whole other thing entirely and just aargh" and try not to induce that feeling in my own listeners\readers. This is mainly a stylistic choice on my part, though.
In Esperanto, you can replace the word "al" (to) with the accusative case. That's all that's happening here.
En la ĉambro = In the room
En la ĉambron = Into the room.
Instead of translating "into" as "en al", the "al" part gets turned into the accusative case and tacked onto the noun. That's it.
You can make the "al-to-accusative" transformation pretty much across the board in Esperanto, except in one place where it could be confusing: you should not use the accusative case on the indirect object. If you have a sentence with a direct object and an indirect object ("I gave the book to the clerk"), and you turned that "to" into an "-n", you'd end up with two words in a row with an -n on the end, and it would become unclear which was direct and which was indirect (am I giving the book to the clerk, or the clerk to the book?). Pretty much everywhere else it's fair game, though.
Because I feel that the accusative case is a little overloaded in Esperanto, I tend to avoid the "al-to-accusative" transformations in most places, however, except when turning words like "in" (en) into "into" (which isn't an individual Esperanto word; you must use the accusative of direction to express it). Otherwise if my sentences need an "al" in them, they generally get an "al" and not an accusative replacement. I can't tell you how many times I've stared at a noun in the accusative case following an intransitive verb and just did. not. get. it. for a moment until realizing "oh, it's not marking the direct object - of which there is none - it's doing this whole other thing entirely and just aargh" and try not to induce that feeling in my own listeners\readers. This is mainly a stylistic choice on my part, though.
PrimeMinisterK (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 05:23:09
Zam_franca:I will make sure to do this one next. I finished Lesson 6 of 12 of the Kurso today. I was getting through a lesson a day for the first four but then ran into the correlatives and everything ground to a halt.
Doing La teorio Nakamura after starting another course is good. You will already know many things, so it won't be a shock to discover new affixes or correlatives, and you will aready know a few words that will help you (e.g. "mi studas en mia laborejo").
Zam_franca:After you've finished the teorio Nakamura, you will have, I guess, an A2 level, and if you practice Eo you'll quickly reach a B1 level.I had never heard of A2, B1 etc in terms of languages. I did look a little info up but it was pretty general.
Also, please see Kion fari post la kurso de lernu?.
What should one's ability be at A2 and B1, respectively?
PrimeMinisterK (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 05:25:00
flanke:[I will do that one next.
Just do i]La Teorio Nakamura[/i],it's really good.
Are you familiar with the Kurso de Esperanto? It's actually a pretty great little piece of software.
http://www.kurso.com.br/index.php?en
PrimeMinisterK (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 06:05:11
Zam_franca:Here's a few 'practice sentences' that you can translate:Excellent, thanks! Let's give this a try.
Zam_franca:Do you have any charger that I could use?Ĉu vi havas sarĝilon ke mi povas uzi?
Zam_franca:I have many allergies.Mi havas multe da alergiojn.
* Totally guessing on "multe da" here, but it seems I read something about this regarding quantities of something.
Zam_franca:Hmm. I'm really not sure. Actually, in English this is kind of a strange sentence as well. Are you saying he has lied 16,000 times?
He is a 16 000 times liar.
Zam_franca:I love travelling in other countries.Mi amas vojaĝi en aliaj landoj.
Zam_franca:She met him yesterday.Ŝi renkontis lin hieraŭ.
Zam_franca:We often take the train in order to see our friends in Geneva.Ofte ni vojaĝi per trajno por vidi niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo.
* That may not quite be what you're looking for. I'm not really sure how to say "to take the train."
Zam_franca:If you had a friend that lives in a foreign country, would you visit him?Se havus amikon kiun vivas en eksterlando, ĉu vi vizitus lin?
* Whoa. We're getting into very unfamiliar territory here. I remember reading something about a conditional mood, and this seems like it might be the time to use it. But I really have no idea what I'm doing. I don't even know if ĉu can come in the middle of a sentence like that.
PrimeMinisterK (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 06:08:03
RiotNrrd:Here are some of the mnemonics I used to learn the correlatives. These aren't rules. They aren't even necessarily 100% accurate. They're just help-things.Cool, excellent! Thanks for taking the time to type that up. I will definitely make use of this.
"K" words are the "kwestion" words. I don't have a mnemonic for the T words that answer them.
"Kiel" means, more or less, the word "like". "Kiel" is an anagram of "like".
-iam: "am" is one of the time periods (am\pm). These are time words.
-iu: These either refer to a person, or an object named in that sentence. Not in an earlier sentence. Not in a later sentence. That sentence. I think of the ending "u" as rhyming with "who" as the mnemonic.
-io: These are super-similar to the previous, but refer to things unnamed in that sentence (and never people). You can also use "tio" if the sentence is being used to name the thing. "Tio estas kato. Tiu kato estas bela. Tio ankaŭ ronronas." No mnemonic here. Just rote memorization.
-iom: The mnemonic here is a personal one relating to something I encountered in my youth called an "Om-Circle", which is basically a group of people standing in a large circle - generally at sunset - with their arms embracing the shoulders of their immediate neighbors and chanting "Om" in long, drawn out tones. For me, the "wide embrace" part of that image suggests the "quantities" implied by the -iom words in a kind of "the fish was thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big" kind of way. Since this is based on a personal experience, your mileage may vary with this image.
-ies: I don't really use it much, so I just remember it as one of the ones I don't have a mnemonic for.
Those are what's helped me. Again, ymmv.
Also, I remember them being confusing and identical looking clear up until one day they weren't. Practice makes better.
And I get what you mean about them "being confusing and identical-looking clear up until one day they weren't." I think that a lot of learning is that way. One day the clouds just part and things seem comprehensible.
PrimeMinisterK (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 06:25:27
RiotNrrd:The accustive of direction sounds more complicated than it is.I've noticed that it seems like everyone who really knows something about Esperanto also knows a lot about grammar in general. Were you into languages before you started learning Esperanto, or did Esperanto teach you about grammar?
In Esperanto, you can replace the word "al" (to) with the accusative case. That's all that's happening here.
En la ĉambro = In the room
En la ĉambron = Into the room.
Instead of translating "into" as "en al", the "al" part gets turned into the accusative case and tacked onto the noun. That's it.
You can make the "al-to-accusative" transformation pretty much across the board in Esperanto, except in one place where it could be confusing: you should not use the accusative case on the indirect object. If you have a sentence with a direct object and an indirect object ("I gave the book to the clerk"), and you turned that "to" into an "-n", you'd end up with two words in a row with an -n on the end, and it would become unclear which was direct and which was indirect (am I giving the book to the clerk, or the clerk to the book?). Pretty much everywhere else it's fair game, though.
Because I feel that the accusative case is a little overloaded in Esperanto, I tend to avoid the "al-to-accusative" transformations in most places, however, except when turning words like "in" (en) into "into" (which isn't an individual Esperanto word; you must use the accusative of direction to express it). Otherwise if my sentences need an "al" in them, they generally get an "al" and not an accusative replacement. I can't tell you how many times I've stared at a noun in the accusative case following an intransitive verb and just did. not. get. it. for a moment until realizing "oh, it's not marking the direct object - of which there is none - it's doing this whole other thing entirely and just aargh" and try not to induce that feeling in my own listeners\readers. This is mainly a stylistic choice on my part, though.
The funny thing is that I have written professionally, but I actually know very little about English grammar. I just intuitively know how to write. I think it was all the reading I did growing up. It taught me how to put a sentence together.
In regard to this "accusative of direction," if I were going to say "I threw the ball into the catcher's mitt," would I say, "Mi ĵetis la pilkon en la kaptoganton"?
Or I were going to say, "I tossed the book onto the desk," would I say, "Mi ĵetetis la libron sur la skribtablon"?
Or lastly, if I were to say, "I gave the movie to my friend," would I say, "My donis la filmon al mia amiko"?
flanke (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 07:02:41
PrimeMinisterK:Oh,I also used it.Actually,I used Verda Reto（Chinese Esperanto Website: http://reto.cn/php/hanyu/ ）,Kurso de Esperanto,Duolingo,and also lernu! when I began to learn Esperanto in 2017.flanke:[I will do that one next.
Just do i]La Teorio Nakamura[/i],it's really good.
Are you familiar with the Kurso de Esperanto? It's actually a pretty great little piece of software.
http://www.kurso.com.br/index.php?en
By the way,there's the official grammar（ https://bertilow.com/pmeg/ ） which is written by a member of the unique Esperanto official (lingual) institution Akademio de Esperanto.And the grammar in lernu!（ https://lernu.net/gramatiko ）is its translated simple/easy version.Just refer to them.
flanke (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 07:40:08
I think you should say:
(por ke faru=in order to do )
PrimeMinisterK:Ĉu vi havas ŝarĝilon kiun mi povas uzi
Ĉu vi havas sarĝilon ke mi povas uzi?
PrimeMinisterK:Mi havas multe da alergioj or Mi havas multajn alergiojn
Mi havas multe da alergiojn.
PrimeMinisterK:Ofte ni vojaĝas per trajno por ke vidu niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo
Ofte ni vojaĝi per trajno por vidi niajn amikojn en Ĝenevo.
(por ke faru=in order to do )
PrimeMinisterK:Se vi havus amikon kiu vivas en fremda lando,ĉu vi vizitus lin?
Se havus amikon kiun vivas en eksterlando, ĉu vi vizitus lin?
Metsis (Montri la profilon) 2020-aprilo-09 07:43:35
PrimeMinisterK:Basics of grammar is taught in the elementary school in my country. What are the parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, adverbs) and how to do some elementary parsing (what is subject, predicate, object, attribute, predicative). How could you otherwise understand your own language? How could you possibly learn other languages that are taught in the school?
I've noticed that it seems like everyone who really knows something about Esperanto also knows a lot about grammar in general. Were you a language geek before you started learning Esperanto, or did Esperanto teach you about grammar?