Print

Print


On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:55:15 -0700, Donald J. HARLOW <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>There's one fundamental problem with all this,
>Rex. While the -AS, -IS and -OS endings all show
>*actions*, the participial suffixes show
>something quite different -- *states*. "dormasa"
>would be a perfectly legitimate word in classical
>Esperanto (we already occasionally use terms like
>"isa" and "osa" -- see the ads for the 2002 ELNA
>Congress in Sacramento), but it wouldn't mean quite the same as "dormanta".

So I've awkwardly reinvented the wheel yet again?  Obviously, I want to know more 
about this, as I've never encountered such usage  I've searched, but can't find the ad 
you're referring to.

>
>("kisatu" is also a legitimate word, though it
>would be rarely used, and means something like "u
>kisate" rather than "estu kisata". "kisu" is of
>course highly legitimate and, one supposes,
>commonly used in certain circles; but again it
>doesn't mean quite the same as "kisantu".)
>
>I am dubious about the esthetic value of the -T
>termination in "frapat". See Gaston Waringhien's
>snarls of distaste about a piece of Occi poetry
>which he quotes in "Lingvo kaj vivo" and which
>has a number of such terminating clicks.
>Actually, you can't always hear the -T ending,
>which can easily turn into a glottal stop, not a
>phonological staple of Esperanto or any other IAL
>wannabe that I can think of, including Ie and Ia,
>where the -T ending can appear (I believe).
>

Oh, me, too.  Don't like the -t ending all that much.  I was just trying to work within 
what's already there.  Probably it's taking things too far to have a whole set of passive 
endings, not least because any letter I can think of to base it on is busy doing something 
else or is, like you say, unesthetic by Eo standards.

And what you say about the present/timeless thing is very interesting.  It does jibe with a 
lot of other languages that way, of course, and seems offhand never to lead to ambiguity.

OTOH, is "mi estas dormanta" ambiguous?  I take it as signifying present tense in two 
ways, simply because all other Vs Vnta forms definitely mean something else, and the 
default is, thus, the present tense.

You say:
"Note: "li dormes" is unnecessary because "li 
dormas" already specifies only that the person is 
sleeping -- no beginning or end point is 
specified (this is more apparent in the 
participle, "dormanta", which also specifies no 
beginning or end of the sleep period -- "La 
Dormanta Belulino ... dormas, de kiam ni ne 
scias, gxis kiam ni ne scias, almenaux se ne alvenos princo por kisveki sxin").

So, could you say:

-anta = anytime at all
-inta = anytime before now
-onta = anytime after now

And, then, it seems that the 'present' endings are actually very context-based.  I mean, 
the bare sentence "Li dormas" is indeed ambiguous when taken out of context.  It could 
mean different things.

Kion Johano faras nun?  Li dormas.

Kiel Johano uzas cx tiun liton?  Li dormas.

I imagine all this has be exhaustively discussed somewhere, but I've never encountered it 
that I remember.

And i very much would like to see examples of -asa -isa -osa usage.  I'm curious about 
how it's thought of as differing from the nta endings.