* Support lernu!
lernu is able to operate thanks to your support.

Log in

Remember me

THE DICTIONARY VORTARO*

To open the dictionary, click on the button above. You can find explanations on how to use the dictionary under "Help pages".

>“La Vortaro”Pilger: “BER”Bick: “Esperanto-dansk”>

Help: * ?

THE INSTANT MESSENGER TUJMESAĜILO*

You can use this instant messenger to chat with other lernu! users. To start the messenger, click on one of the above buttons. You can find more information under "Help Pages".

Rules * *


/ Community /

Forum

Overview / In English / How to use conditional and past tense of a verb?
Page 1 2 (of 2)
New post
 Author   Messages 
tommjames
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Messages: 1555


2012-12-15 13:24:39 Reply / Report message
Kirilo81 skribis:
'-intus' as past irrealis is neither Zamenhofian
Incorrect. Zamenhof used this form, and it is in the Fundamento.

Kirilo81 skribis:
nor useful
It is useful when context is not sufficiently clear for a simple form, or when use of extra time words would be inelegant. Admittedly that's not all the time, or even especially often, but either way it's wrong to call that form useless.

Kirilo81 skribis:
nor desireable
That's arguable, but personally I have zero interest in this argument because I'm quite happy to speak actual Esperanto, as it is spoken. I have no desire to make the language conform to my own linguistic sensibilities.
 
Vilius
Messages: 478


2012-12-15 15:59:59 Reply / Report message
orthohawk skribis:
It may be just me, but I would say, "Mi dezirus, ke vie ne faru tion."
It's still ambiguous. From what you wrote, I am not able to figure out which meaning you have in mind ("wouldn't have said" or "wouldn't say in future" ).
 
Kirilo81
Country of residence: Germany
Messages: 912


2012-12-15 19:20:56 Reply / Report message
tommjames skribis:
Kirilo81 skribis:
'-intus' as past irrealis is neither Zamenhofian
Incorrect. Zamenhof used this form, at it is in the Fundamento.
"Mi ne farus la eraron, se li antaŭe dirus al mi la veron (aŭ se li estus dirinta al mi la veron)." (Ekzercaro, §24)

This sentence and the whole paragraph deal with relative temporal anteriority, which is the function of '-inta'. The actual time the utterance refers to must always be fixed by the form of 'esti'.
Of course I don't say that '-intus' can't mean past irrealis, it is just one of its three functions (pluperfect, perfect and future perfect irrealis), and probably the most common even with correct usage.

tommjames skribis:
Kirilo81 skribis:
nor useful
It is useful when context is not sufficiently clear for a simple form, or when use of extra time words would be inelegant. Admittedly that's not all the time, or even especially often, but either way it's wrong to call that form useless.
It were useful, if '-int-' expressed past tense, but it doesn't, unless you assign a new function to this special construction. A simple adverb of time does the trick much better.

tommjames skribis:
Kirilo81 skribis:
nor desireable
That's arguable, but personally I have zero interest in this argument because I'm quite happy to speak actual Esperanto, as it is spoken. I have no desire to make the language conform to my own linguistic sensibilities.
And I want to keep Esperanto regular, and that's not just my sensibility, but the actual norm fixed in the Fundamento.
It would be a shame if after let's say 200 years of proposing Esperanto to the world there came the decisive moment and we had to say "Yes, it's regular, except for '-int-' which does mean something else with '-us' than with '-as/-is/-os' or with "ecological" which is 'naturprotekta' but 'eko-' in compounds etc. - We're sorry, but sometimes we were just to lazy to think about our language use".
We (the modern intellectual society) do care about not accelerating climate change, we do care about spreading peace instead of force, we should also care about not making international communication harder than it could be.
 
tommjames
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Messages: 1555


2012-12-15 20:17:38 Reply / Report message
Kirilo81 skribis:
It were useful, if '-int-' expressed past tense, but it doesn't
It doesn't matter that -INT shows aspect (completeness) rather than timing (pastness). The point is that in phrases like "mi ne estus farinta tion", the "estus" is assumed to concern the present, as per the quote from PMEG in the thread I linked to. And of course, relative to the present something 'complete' can only have occured in the past.

The prezencigo of "estus" and use of Estus X-inta phrases for the past conditional may well be a result of influence from Western European languages that tend to make finer timing distinctions than are strictly necessary. I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it since it's a well establised feature of the language and isn't going to go away. (Incedentally this also invalidates the comparison with 'far', which is no more than an experimental word that appears to have completely failed to catch on).
 
sudanglo
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Messages: 4520


2012-12-16 10:45:21 Reply / Report message
Citaĵo:
I wish you wouldn't do that
Translating this isn't just a matter of following the English pattern with appropriate tenses. The meaning seems to me to be that the other party is in the habit of doing something that the first party finds annoying and is complaining about.

This meaning has to be distinguished from telling someone that you don't want him/her to do something in the future.

It is quite clear from searches in the Tekstaro that deziras, ke is normally followed by an -u verb. However there seems to be a greater choice of verb form after dezirus, ke.

As to the best translation 'I wish you wouldn't', I hesitate. But something along the lines of 'Mi preferus se vi povus rezisti vian kutiman tenton' might do. I leave it to the Forum to improve on that.

Citaĵo:
I wish you wouldn't have done that
This doesn't seem to me to be even correct English (though it might be OK in certain parts of America). In British English it would be 'I wish you hadn't done that'

Th minimal translation might be Mi dezirus ke vi ne faris tion. But I would prefer something with -int here - perhaps Mi pli kontentus se vi ne estus tion farinta
 
sudanglo
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Messages: 4520


2012-12-16 10:56:31 Reply / Report message
'Far' has a long history in the language and there are plenty of hits in the Tekstaro. From memory it seems to have been well established by the seventies.

There is no question about the usefulness of 'fare de'. Personally I find 'far' more elegant.
 
sudanglo
Country of residence: United Kingdom
Messages: 4520


2012-12-16 11:04:37 Reply / Report message
Citaĵo:
I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it (estus -inta) since it's a well established feature of the language and isn't going to go away
Absolutely, Tom
 
Kirilo81
Country of residence: Germany
Messages: 912


2012-12-16 13:36:56 Reply / Report message
tommjames skribis:
I would just make the point that it's useless complaining about it since it's a well establised feature of the language and isn't going to go away.
You're totally right that it is an established feature, but I don't want to "complain", but to draw people's attention to tho problem. It has come as an unconscious calque, and it may go by a conscious decision not to use it any more.

tommjames skribis:
The prezencigo of "estus" and use of Estus X-inta phrases for the past conditional may well be a result of influence from Western European languages that tend to make finer timing distinctions than are strictly necessary.
I think we have to distinguish between the commonly used terminology and the real notions. "Present conditional" hardly ever has something to do with present tense, but is either set in the future or it is valid at every time (gnomic). It expresses something you can do, but you effectively won't do. On the other hand "past conditional" expresses something you could, but you didn't do.
This is miles away from the temporal anteriority the Esperanto '-inta' participle expresses.
 
Ferdinand
Cesarano

Country of residence: United States
Messages: 64


2012-12-21 19:25:31 Reply / Report message
While I agree with Kirilo81's take on the Fundamento, and his opposition to the use of "far" (on grounds both Fundementisma (we may not create new prepositons) and utila ("fare de" fulfills the function)), I do not see the problem with "estus [VERBO]-inta / [VERBO]-intus" to express past conditional. It is not a calque; it is consistent with the meanings of the Esperanto forms.

The participles are adjectives, which modify the subject by means of the linking verb "esti". (In this way, they differ from the Western participles, which are fully part of the verbal paradigm.)

Consider "falanta", "falinta", and "falonta", which are adjectives that mean, respectively, "in the state of falling", "in the state of having fallen", "in the state of being about to fall".

It is incontrovertable that "mi estas falinta" / "mi falintas" means "(I) (am) (in the state of having fallen)", which is semantically equivalent to "I have fallen". So it follows that "mi estus falinta" / "mi falintus" means "(I) (would be) (in the state of having fallen)", which is semantically equivalent to "I would have fallen".

The sentence "Mi falintus se vi ne movintus la obstaklon" is perfectly fine, and has a meaning distinct from the simple "Mi falus se vi ne movus la obstakon"

* "Mi falintus se vi ne movintus la obstaklon" = "I would be in the state of having fallen if you were [the contra-factual/subjunctive "were"; not the past-tense "were"] not in the state of having moved the obstacle", or, more naturally in English "I would have fallen if you had not moved the obstacle."

* "Mi falus se vi ne movus la obstaklon" = "I would fall if you were [again the contra-factual "were", not the past-tense "were"] not to move the obstacle."

The most powerful applications of "estus [VERBO]-inta" / "[VERBO]-intus" are with the verbs "povi" and "devi":

"mi devus iri" = "I should go"
"mi estus devinta iri" / "mi devintus iri" = "I should have gone"

"mi povus iri" = "I could go"
"mi estus povinta iri" / "mi povintus iri" = "I could have gone"

The participle "povinta" is an adjective which means "in the state of having been able [to do something]"; in other words, in the state where the ability [to do something] has passed. So "mi estus povinta iri" / "mi povintus iri" clearly says "(I) (would be) (in the state of having been able) (to go)", which amounts to "I could have gone".

"Se vi estus informinta al mi pri la kunveno, mi estus povinta iri tien." = If you had informed me [that is: if you were now in the state of having informed me] about the meeting, I could have gone [that is: I would now be in the state of having been able to go] there.

I admit that it makes the brain hurt if you try to break the construction down. But, "-intus" works perfetly as the past conditional, not only due to alkutimiĝo, but also because it makes good sense within Esperanto.
 
mihxil
Country of residence: Netherlands
Messages: 1736


2012-12-21 20:13:46 Reply / Report message
Ferdinand Cesarano skribis:
(on grounds both Fundementisma (we may not create new prepositons)
Can someone please quote the relevant 'rules' from the Fundamanto which say this. It seems I can't find it.

Page 1 2 (of 2)
New post

Subscribe to the thread