Ta

• Cara Simon,pote nos usa “ta” per vole ,desira en ajunta a nonreal ?(en gramatica,”nos ta vade ,let’s go”)
• Donce en me (notes arabian), me ia usa “ta mata =vole fa mata” (Alora la re sposi repetente virjines e ta mata los a la matina ce segue.) Es Asi coreta?
  • Me trova acel usa de “ta” nonclar. “Ta” indica nonrealia, ipotesalia: el es multe bon per “would”. Per un comanda a la persones prima o tre, me sujeste ce “ce” es plu clar: “Ce tu rena veni”, “Ce nos vade”. Nota ce “would” en engles indica frecuente un ata abitual, e no un ata nonreal o desirada. Posable es de acel modo en tu tradui de la Notes Arabian: “he would kill them” – abitual, donce simple “e mata los” (o “fa mata los”, car probable el mata los par comanda a un otra person). Simon
  • me gusta la usa de “ta” per “tu rena ta veni” e “nos ta vade.” en esta casos, la “ta” sinifia ce la ata no es real aora, ma pote es real en un futur nonserta, en un modo simile a la parolas engles “would/could/should.” me pensa ce no confusa es probable, per ce en esta frases, on no ave un parola como “duta” e no juntas como “si…donce.” Jorj
  • Donce “me ta aida tu” pote sinifia ambos de “I would help you” (if I could, but I can’t) e “let me help you”? On pote dise ce cada ata futur no es aora real. “Nos ta vade” es un comanda ce nos va departi, aora. “Tu rena ta veni” difere: el es como un desira ce “ta es bon si tu rena ta veni”. Simon
  • “let’s go” no es la mesma como “let me help you!” (lasa me aida tu). “let’s go” es “we would/should/could go.” Jorj
  • Tu es coreta ce “let me help you” es un comanda a tu, no a me — pardona. Ance “let us go” pote sinifia “lasa nos vade”. Ma, a otra casos, “let’s go” es simple un comanda de nos a nos. Me no pensa ce el sinifia “we would go” o “we should go” o “we could go”. El sinifia “Nos: vade!” Simil, “let me think” o “let me see…” no nesesa es un comanda a otras: el pote es un comanda de me a me. “We would go” e “we could go” sujeste un conseta de “if”. “We should go” sinifia “it’s our duty to go” (posable con un sujeste ce, contra la debe, nos va resta). Simon

• en usa comun en nos vici e en gramatica→ “ Ta es ance usada per indica simple la vole, desira, o crede de la parlor: * Tu renia ta veni (lasa tu renia veni; nos vole ce tu renia va veni; nos crede ce tu renia va veni…). Nos ta vade (lasa nos vade; me desire ce nos vade; me crede ce nos debe vade…).”
  • Donce ,ta es usada per realia !

• nota ce “ta” no es usada per la modo “real.” sola la presente e la pasada es “real.” “ta” e la futur es ambos nonreal. la futur es forte e clar en se tempo; “ta” es debil, sin tempo clar. “ta” indica ce la ata dependes a la resulta de un otra ata, o ce la ata es esperada, desirada, dutada, o sola posable. “ta” es ance usada per debili un verbo, per esemplo, en un demanda como “tu ta dona el a me?” (would you give that to me?) o “nos ta vade” (let’s go, we should go, “would that we go”). ma no oblida ce “ta” es un particulo elejable e pote es no usada si otra parolas (como “si…donce,” “me duta ce,” “nos debe,” etc) es presente. Jorj
  • Multe grasias per la clari detalos. Me comprende aora multe plu bon tu intende per “ta”, e acorda con el. Simon
  • esta plase me! Jorj

Debe, pote, vole

• Esperanto distingui “povas” (can) de “povus” (could), e “devas” (must) de “devus” (should, ought to). La fini “-us” coresponde normal a nos moda dependente (conditional), ma en “povus” e “devus” lo ajunta la sensa spesial ce, an si la pote o la debe esiste, probable on no va segue lo. “I could help you, but I’m not going to.” “I ought to clean the kitchen, but I can’t be bothered.” Esce nos pote usa “ta pote” e “ta debe” en LFN per esta sensas? (Esperanto dise ance “volus” per “would like (but can’t have)”, ma “volus” apare ance en demandas cortes: “I would like to ask you …” = “me vole demanda”.)
  • me pensa on pote usa “ta” en esta modo, ma recorda ce “ta” es un eleje e no un esije. me no ta usa “ta” en esta modo.
  • Tu ta dise “me pote aida tu, ma me no va fa” e “me debe limpi la cosina, ma me no vole”? Pos pensa, estas pare bon, car la pote e la debe es fatos real. Per asentua ce on no va segue los, on pote dise “an si me pote aida tu, me no va fa”, e “an si me debe limpi la cosina, me no vole”. Simon

La discute reabri

• Me no susede dise en elefen: “J’aurais juré que…” Ta pote es: je jurerais / j’aurais juré / que je jure… car on no pote combina “ta” con “ia” e con “ja” pare multe strana… Patric
  • Esce on nesesa vera tradui la moda dependente? On pote dise “me ia jura ce …”, ce espresa ce tu ia ave forte esta crede en la pasada. O on pote ajunta un proposa con “si”: “si tu no ia dise esta, me ta jura ce” – si tu dise no ia aveni ja, me ta ave ancora la crede ce… Simon
  • On no pote combina “ta” con “ia”, car “ta” e “ia” (e “va”) indica tempos. La tempo indicada par “ta” es forte nonreal en modos varios. Simil, en esperanto on recomenda ce on no dise “mi estus farinta” (an si multe parlores dise el…); “mi farus” sinifia la mesma, car “-us” indica un tempo spesial. Ma me crede ce on pote combina “ta” con “ja”, car “ja” servi per sujesta la perfeta: el no indica un tempo. Per esemplo: “Si tu no ia interrompe, me ta fini ja me labora.” Esta es simil a “j’aurais fini” / “I would have finished”, ma el conteni un sensa de “ja” plu pur. En “j’aurais juré”, la tempo complicada es poca plu ce un idiom. Simon
  • A veses, me trova alga torpe ce “ta” indica ance comandas: “me ta dise” pote es “I would say” e “let me say”. Cisa “lasa me dise” (un usa ce me ia vide frecuente de Jorj) es plu clar, an si el conteni un sinifia metaforal de “lasa”. Simon
  • me no recorda de do esta usa de “ta” ia veni. posable myaleee ia desira el per cortesia? “esta ta plase me si tu…” es un bon usa cortes de “ta”. per me, “me ta dise” es bon sola pos un espresa como “si…, me ta dise…” me prefere “lasa me dise…” e, si tu prefere sutrae la mensiona de esta usa de “ta”, per favore, sutrae el! ance, recorda ce “ta” es nunca un esije! jorj
    • Per un desira/espera/comanda, on pote usa “ce” , no? “ce me ariva a tempo!” (= me desira/espera ce me… / (me comanda) ce el veni pronto…), en cuando “ta” es plu bon un suposa: “me ta ariva a tempo (si me ta ave un auto)… Patric
    • Me pensa ce estas es tro confusante, car cuando on trova “ce” a la comensa de un frase, on comprende el como un parola de demanda (= ce cosa?). Jorj, esce “lasa me ariva a tempo” es bon? (El difere de “lasa me dise”, do on parla a un person, e on vole ce esta person permete ce tu parla. En “lasa me ariva a tempo”, on parla a se mesma, o a la sielo, o a me-no-sabe-ce.) Simon
    • on pote dise “lasa me ariva a tempo” en esta modo, ma plu bon ta es “me espera ce me ariva a tempo”. la usa de “ce” ce patric sujeste no esiste en lfn. normal, la idea de la sujuntiva o dependente es ja indicada par parolas como “duta”, “espera”, etc, o “si… donce”. la “ta” clari o asentua la nonrealia en esta casos. ma nos ave ance casos do esta parolas no es incluida ma sujesteda. “tu renia ta veni” es un corti per “nos espera ce tu renia va veni” o “per favore, permite ce tu renia va veni”. pensa de “would that your kingdom come”. jorj

• La usa de “ta” per desiras ia es en la gramatica ante cuando me ia veni en la comunia en marte 2008: Simon
  • “Ta es ance usada per indica simple la vole, desira, o crede de la parlor:
  • Tu renia ta veni (lasa tu renia veni; nos vole ce tu renia va veni; nos crede ce tu renia va veni…).
  • Nos ta vade (lasa nos vade; me desire ce nos vade; me crede ce nos debe vade…).”
• Me acorda ce on no debe recomenda el. Do es Ali? Simon
  • Esta usas de “ta” es coreta. los es paralel a la usa de la sujuntiva e no relata a la caso de cortesia. jorj
  • Esce “ta” es coreta cuando on recomenda subita un ata, como en “nos ta vade” e “nos ta dansa”? Si el es coreta, como on distingui el de “let me say”, do tu dise ce “ta” es noncoreta? (“Let me go” es clar diferente, car el es un comanda direta = “libri me”.) Simon
  • interesante. me vide “let me say” como un idiom con sinifia leteral minimal. ma “I would (like to) say” ta es “me ta (vole) dise”, como “Let’s go” ta es “nos ta (debe) vade”. nota ce on pote ance dise “me vole dise” e “nos debe vade”! “ta” moli la intensia de “vole”, “debe”, etc. e donce la posable de usa per cortesia. jorj
    • Me vide “let me say” como simple la imperativa de la person prima. Se forma gramatical es strana, ma me no vide el como un idiom. El es un parte basal de engles. Como on dise en lfn “let’s say” cuando on eleje un esemplo en un razona? (“Per esemplo”, si, ma esta evita la demanda.) Como on dise “let’s agree to differ”? “Nos debe vade” pare sinifia “we must go”, ce es un declara de un fato, e no la mesma como “let’s go”, ce es un proposa de ata. “Nos ta debe vade” sinifia “we should go” (we would have to go), ce es ance no esata la mesma. Simon
    • “debe” es vera plu como “should” e “nesesa” es plu como “must”. es la difere entre presa plu sosial e presa plu fisical. jorj
    • per “let me say”, on pote dise “me vole dise”; “let’s say” - “nos pote dise”; “let’s agree to differ” - “nos debe acorda ce nos desacorda”. jorj
    • Posable un bon tradui de “let’s go!” es simple “nos vade!” Simon

Per clari la usa de “ta”: “ta” es multe simil a “would” en engles, e a la sujuntiva e dependente en la linguas romanica. on pote usa “ta” per indica “I would like to (or just “would”) see it” - “me ta vole vide el”; “I would be able to (could) see it” - “me ta pote vide el”; “I would have to (should) see it” - “me ta debe vide el”. “Ta” es ance usos per indica cortesia: “tu ta pote fa un favore per me?”; “me ta vole usa la telefon?”; “tu ta dona la sal a me?”. la sinifia en esta casos es ce tu responde no es predeterminada o serta, ma depende de tu desiras.

• Vide ance esta discute vea. Simon
• Me pensa ce la usa coreta de “ta” es idiomal, e un esplica nesesa inclui un lista longa de esemplos. Simon
• me no es serta. asi es la defini de “would” en un de me disionarios:

would |woŏd|

• modal verb ( 3rd sing. present would )
• 1 past of will 1 , in various senses: : he said he would be away for a couple of days | he wanted out, but she wouldn’t leave | the windows would not close.
• 2 (expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation : he would lose his job if he were identified.
  • ( I would) used to give advice : I wouldn’t drink that if I were you.
• 3 expressing a desire or inclination : I would love to work in Prague | would you like some water?
• 4 expressing a polite request : would you pour the wine, please?
  • expressing willingness or consent : who would live here?
• 5 expressing a conjecture, opinion, or hope : I would imagine that they’ll want to keep it | I guess some people would consider it brutal | I would have to agree.
• 6 used to make a comment about behavior that is typical : every night we would hear the boy crying | derogatory they would say that, wouldn’t they?
• 7 [with clause ] poetic/literary expressing a wish or regret : would that he had lived to finish it.

• 2, 3 e 5 es esensal la mesma: los conteni o implica “si…” (I would love to … if I could; would you like some … if I were to offer it?; I would imagine … if I had to give an opinion; etc). Ance la parte du de 4 es la mesma (who would live here … if they had the choice?) – me no comprende per ce el es listada su 4. La parte prima de 4 es la sola caso ce es diferente. Ma on pote vide el como un estende spesial de la otra sensa: “would you pour the wine … if I asked you to do so?” El demanda sur la mundo real, ma el finje demanda sur un mundo imajinada – car on pote es min cortes en un mundo ce no esiste e no ave segues. Me suposa ce acel es la orijin, a la min. Donce pos esta analise, me acorda con tu! Simon

e en la vicipedia su “irrealis”:

• The subjunctive mood, sometimes called conjunctive mood, has several uses in dependent clauses. Examples include discussing hypothetical or unlikely events, expressing opinions or emotions, or making polite requests (the exact scope is language-specific). “I suggested that Paul eat an apple”, Paul is not in fact eating an apple. Contrast this with the sentence “Paul eats an apple”, where the verb “to eat” is in the present tense, indicative mood. Another way, especially in British English, of expressing this might be “I suggested that Paul should eat an apple”, derived from “Paul should eat an apple.”
  • La esemplo de Paul e la poma es strana. “I suggested that Paul eat an apple” sinifia “I recommended eating an apple as a course of action to Paul”, o simil. “Si” es denova implicada: Paul ta come un poma si el desira refresci se, per esemplo. La “si” implicada pote es evidente la state real (e esta pote es la razona de omete el de la frase). (E clar, el no come vera un poma. No person pensa ce acel ta es entre la sinifias posable de “ta come un poma”.) Simon
  • Ma vide ce me ia pone ala “Paul ta come un poma si…” Esta no coresponde a un usa de “would”. Esce tu opina ce “would” covre tota usas de “ta”? “Paul debe come” es posable, ma tro forte. El no debe; me fa sola un recomenda a el. En esperanto on distingui “-us” per “would” (con un “si” implicada, ance per cortesia) e “-u” per comandas e desiras (“Paŭlo manĝu pomon” = let Paul eat an apple, como “let them eat cake!”; “mi proponis, ke Paŭlo manĝu pomon” = I suggested that Paul [should] eat an apple). Me trova ce difisil es sabe cual partes de esta du sensas en esperanto es bon per “ta” en lfn. Simon
  • me pensa ce “ta” pote ance es usada per “should” e “could” cuando la sinifias de “debe” o “pote” no es asentuada. “paul debe come” es forte. “paul ta debe come” es min forte. “paul ta come” es la min forte. me ia vide sempre “ta” en esta modo. jorj
  • Donce tu pensa ce “Paul ta come” pote sinifia “Paul could eat”? O “Paul ta come” es un forma debilida de “Paul ta debe come”, ma no de “Paul ta pote come”? Simon
  • Como tu tradui esta tre varias de “Paul [ta, debe] come” en engles? Cisa “Paul must eat”, “Paul should eat”, “I suggest that Paul eat”? En esperanto: “Paŭlo devas manĝi” (un fato), “Paŭlo devus manĝi” (un fato debil, ce on pote iniora), “Paŭlo manĝu” (un desira o sujesta). Simon
• dubative: the speaker’s doubt or uncertainty about the event denoted by the verb
  • Me suposa ce esta no aplica a “ta”. “Me duta ce la television vade.” Si on ajunta “ta”, on implica “si”: “Me duta ce la television ta vade, si on ta comuta el per proba.” Simon
  • me pensa ce “ta” inclui esta. el no implica “si”. “el compra un television vea. me duta ce el ta vade.” jorj
  • Ma asi, “ta” ajunta no sinifia. La duta es ja espresada par la parola “duta”. Esce esta es un manera de asentua la duta? Me suposa ce “ta” es normal implicada par la parola “duta”, esata como “ia” es implicada par la parola “ier”. Ma si on ajunta “ia” con “ier”, on no senti un asentua; on senti simple un repete peti, si on an persepi el. Simon
• hypothetical: expresses a counterfactual but possible event or situation.
• the conditional version of “John eats if he is hungry” is: John would eat if he were hungry
• The optative mood expresses hopes, wishes or commands and has other uses that may overlap with the subjunctive mood.
• The desiderative mood expresses wishes and desires. Whereas the optative expresses hopes, the desiderative expresses desires. Desires are what we want to be the case; hope generally implies optimism toward the chances of a desire’s fulfillment. If someone desires something but is pessimistic about its chances of occurring, then one desires it but does not hope for it.
• The jussive mood (abbreviated jus) expresses plea, insistence, imploring, self-encouragement, wish, desire, intent, command, purpose or consequence.
• The cohortative mood (alternatively, “hortatory”) is used to express plea, insistence, imploring, self-encouragement, wish, desire, intent, command, purpose or consequence.
• Precative (abbreviated prec) mood is a grammatical mood which signifies requests, e.g. “Will you pass me the salt?”

donce, me sujeste ce “ta” es usada per indica ce un ata no es un fato, ma es posable, nonserta, dutada, esperada, desirada, sujesteda, ipotetical, o dependeda de un otra situa. “ia” indica normal ce la ata es un fato locada en la pasada. “va” indica normal ce la ata es serta en la futur. la presente indica normal ce la ata es aveni en la presente. jorj

• Me gusta multe la idea ce “ta” indica un mundo nonreal; esta pare satisfa tota la casos. On ave la pasada, la presente, e la futur, e estas es real, partes de la mundo real. Plu, on ave la mundo de imajina, la mundo nonreal, la mundo de “ta”. Si un otra parola indica ja la tempo o la mundo, on no nesesa usa “ia” o “va” o “ta”. La problem es ce “la mundo nonreal” es evidente alga neblos. On pote interprete “ta” en plu ce un modo. Frecuente la situa clari la intende, serta, ma… en tota frases? Patric ia senti un desira de combina “ta” con “ia”, e esta es car la tempo e la mundo es du cosas diferente. La mundo nonreal ave ance un pasada e un futur. Pare es usos si on pote spesifa la tempo de un ata en la mundo nonreal. Simon

• Si tu lasa me viaja, (donce) me vade a Brasil = tu lasa e me vade…
• Si tu ia lasa me viaja, (donce) me ia vade a Brasil = tu ia lasa e me ia vade…
• Si tu va lasa me viaja, (donce) me va vade a Brasil = tu va lasa e me va vade…
• Si tu ta lasa me viaja, (alora) me ta vade a Brasil. = tu no lasa e me no vade…
• Si tu ta ia lasa me viaja, (alora) me ta ia vade a Brasil. = tu no ia lasa e me no ia vade…
• Si tu ta va lasa me viaja, (alora) me ta va vade a Brasil. = tu no va lasa e me no va vade Patric
  • En esta lista, “ta” implica sempre ce la cosa no aveni (o no ia aveni, o no va aveni). Ma esta defini restrinje tro; el es tro sever. Per esemplo, en la frase prima – “Si tu lasa me viaja, me vade a Brasil” – on presenta simple un fato jeneral, como “si on caldi un cuba de jela, el deveni acua”. Ma en lfn, on pote omete “ia” e “va” e “ta” – si la situa permete – e donce on ta pote comprende esta frase como cualce de la otras. “Ta” es simple un modo de parla de un cosa como si el aveni, en un mundo ipotesal. “Ce ta resulta, si …?” / “What if …?” El no proibi la aveni de la cosa: si me dise “si tu ta lasa me viaja”, cisa me susede convinse tu lasa me viaja; e si me dise “tu ta abri la porta?”, me intende vera ce tu abri la porta, ma me refere cortes a un mundo ipotesal per evita parla direta. (La cortesia pote es strana e idiomal, evidente.) Simon
• La cortesia pote esprima se par “per favore”… La sujuntiva ance es ipotesal… An tal, engles (eseta la forma ‘were’) e elefen no ave el… Esce no (ta) es plu bon cansela “ta” ? (en me tradui de poesias me cuasi no usa el car me trova fea) Patric
  • Engles ave apena la sujuntiva, si. Ma en loca, la tempos de la verbos deveni complicada: “If I gave you this biscuit, would you eat it?” / “If I give you this biscuit, will you eat it?” “Ta” no ia es sempre un parte de lfn; on ia ajunta el pos sustitui “ia” e “va” en loca de la infletas orijinal – ante me tempo. “Ta” no es esensal sujuntiva; el es nonreal. La nonrealia ave multe bon usas, e me opina forte ce nos debe reteni el. Per tu, la cosa bela es ce on pote omete “ta” si el es ja clar par la situa. Simon
  • La problem con “ta” en elefen es duple: el es pesos e ave plu sinifias… Vide como cansela el usante la esemplos de la gramatica de elefen:
• Si me ta rena la mundo, cada dia ta es la dia prima de primavera. > Lasa me rena la mundo e cada dia va es la dia prima de primavera.
  • Esta es un bon parafrase, ma el pare plu torpe ce la orijinal. “Si” es un parola estrema usos. Simon
• Si el no esiste, on ta debe inventa el. > Suposante ce el no esiste, on debe inventa el.
  • Esta pote sinifia ce on no sabe si la cosa esiste, ma si on suposa ce el no esiste, donce on debe inventa el. Esta es diferente de la sinifia orijinal. Simon
• Me duta ce tu ta dise acel. > Tu probable no dise acel.
  • Esta pote sinifia “you are probably not saying that”, ce es multe diferente. Simon
    • Tu probable no va dise acel…
    • No, ma con un otra verbo, esta confusa pote aveni serta. Simon
• La mondo ta es sempre pasos. > (sinifia duple !) La mondo es plu bon pasos / La mundo alora va es pasos.
  • Me trova ce “la mundo es plu bon pasos” es multe nonclar. “Plu bon pasos” sinifia “pasos en un modo plu bon”, un spesie de pas ce es plu bon ce la otra spesies de pas! Simon
    • Tal, la mundo (va/ia) es sempre pasos…
• Tu ta dona la sal per favore? > Dona la sal per favore?
  • Con “ta” el es plu cortes. Simon
    • Favore dona la sal?
    • Esta sinifia “favoriser donne le sel”. Simon
• Nos ta dansa! > Nos dansa! Si? Patric
  • Esta sinifia “esce es vera ce nos es dansante?” Simon
    • Si nos dansa?…
    • … ce aveni? Simon

• Me ancora pensa ce en loca de “ta” on pote usa “da” (demanda/desira…) e “sa” (ipotesal) per evita tota ambiguia:
  • Si el veni, nos sa es felis…
  • El da veni pronto! Patric
• Separa la du usas de “ta” (nonreal; desira) es un idea plu bon ce sutrae el de la lingua. Ma me duta ce Jorj va acorda. La usa per desira (como en “nos ta dansa!” e “la mundo ta es pasos”) es clar la min comun de la du. Simon
  • Cisa nos susede convinse Jorj de cambia el a “da” ce evoca a la mesma tempo la idea de “dona” en la romanicas, e la idea de “si (yes)” en rusce e an en bresonica (ya-da!)… Resta ce “da” multe simila “ta”… Patric

Vera, me no comprende vos problemes con “ta”. El ia es sujesteda par elefenistes de paises romanica per permete los indica la sujuntiva e dependente. Cuando me ia vide como los usa “ta”, me deveni rapida abituada a el, e nota la clar relata a la engles “would”. Ma me ia sujeste ce la usa de “ta” debe es elejable e no obligada. On no nesesa usa la sujuntiva car el es en cada caso indicada par parolas como “vole”, “desira”, “duta”, “espera”, etc. E on no nesesa usa la dependente car el es en cada caso indicada par strutures con “si” o “donce”. Ma “ta” es multe usos per ajunta un poca “stilo” a un frase, un indica de nonrealia, ipotesial, posablia, o simple cortesia. El es simil a la usa de “ja”, “es …-da”, “es …-nte” e otra metodos per introdui sutilias - no nesesada, ma usos.

Orijinal, nos ia ave la posable de combina “ta” con “ia” e “va”, ma nos ia rapida nota ce esta no es multe usos, car la tempo es indicada en la plu de casos par la sinifia de la frase completa, o a min par la situa. Nos ia nota ance ce, en multe linguas, la formas irrealis no ave comun varias per tempo. La tempo futur es vera ance un forma de irrealis, e donce nos pote usa “va” en loca de “ta”. E si es importante indica la pasada, on pote usa “ia” car on ave sempre otra indicas de irrealis!

Ultima, si on gusta “ta”, usa el, e si on no gusta “ta”, no usa el. jorj

• Me acorda con esta ce tu dise. Per me, la sola problem – e el es minor – es ce on no pote espresa clar un desira sin dise “me desira ce”. Si me dise “el ta parla”, esce me intende “he should talk” (me desira ce el parla) o “he would talk” (si la mundo ta es diferente)? Me sabe ce “he should talk” es simple un estende de “he would talk” (= he would talk if the world were as I desire it to be), ma la du sensas pare multe diferente. Simon
  • Si pare ja diferente departinte de engles, imajina de la romanicas!: “(Que) Hable él!” / “Hablaría él”… Patric
  • pote tu dona a nos un esemplo de du frases completa en cual la du sinifias de “would” e “should” es confusada cuando on usa “ta”? jorj
  • Me trova ce me no pote. Como embarasante. Pos multe plu pensa, me vide ce la problem es sola un ilude, posable causada par tro multe enspira de esperanto 🙂 Simon
• “Esce” es un corti de “me demanda si”. Me ta gusta un parola simil ce es un corti de “me desira ce”, per usa en comandas (incluinte desiras e recomendas) ce ave un sujeto. Esta ta es simil a “que” en tu esemplo espaniol (ma nos parola “ce” no conveni). Simon
  • esce nos no ave “tu debe…” e “lasa nos…”, etc? jorj
  • Si, tu es coreta, e me parla asurda. An tal, me nota con interesa ce a la comensa de esta discute, tu ia dise: “me ta dise” es bon sola pos un espresa como “si…, me ta dise…” me prefere “lasa me dise…” e, si tu prefere sutrae la mensiona de esta usa de “ta”, per favore, sutrae el! Pare ce tu ia cambia ance tu opina – car aora tu recomenda usa “ta” an sin “si”, e me acorda. Simon
  • tu debe leje acel sita en se situa: me gusta la usa de “ta” per cortesia, ma me pensa ce esta usa no es multe importante, si otras no gusta el. el es sola un corti per “per favore”. ance, me no gusta la usa de la espresa “me ta dise”, no otra espresas como “nos ta vade” (hortative) o “tu ta veni” (imperative). an tal, on pote usa “me ta dise” si on desira. jorj
  • Me acorda ce “ta” es bon per cortesia. E me acorda ce el no es satisfante en la otra casos ce tu mensiona, do no ave un “si”. Nos desacorda es ce tu aseta esta casos nonsatisfante (an sin gusta los), e tu proposa espresas longa como “me desira ce …”, “me espera ce …” como un solve plu satisfante; ma me no vole aseta la casos nonsatisfante, e me xerca un modo plu conveninte per espresa los. (Per esemplo, en la prea “Nos padre”, me suposa ce es nonconveninte si on debe dise “nos espera ce Tu renia vade”.) Ma me comprende ance tu opina, e a veses el pare an coreta, car “Tu renia ta vade” sinifia “Tu renia va vade, per favore” – donce esta es vera un spesie de cortesia. Ma “Tu renia ta vade” pare implica un “si” – esta es la problem fundal per me. “Ta” es cuasi sufisinte grande per conteni tota la sinifias ce nos vole dona a el, ma el pare sola pico tro peti. Simon
  • Esce “oxala” ta es plu bon? : “Oxala el veni pronto!” Patric
  • = Si sola el ta veni pronto! Simon
  • On pote prende “xa” de “oxala” e dise “El xa veni pronto!” (Esta no es un proposa seria.) Simon

• Si “Esce…” es un corti per “Me demanda si…”, alora on pote ave un corti per “Me desira ce…” o “Me comanda ce” ce pote es “Ce…”: “Ce tu veni con nos”, ce es egal a “Veni con nos” > “Que Ton règne vienne!/May Your kingdom come” = “Ce Tu rena veni!”… Ma me ancora prefere “Tu rena da veni” do “da” pote ance indica la forma infinitiva en caso de ambiguia: da es o no da es = to be or not to be… Patric
  • “Ce” no vade, car el aspeta como un demanda. Ma: “Ta ce tu rena veni”?
  • “Ta ce tu rena veni!” es tro… basta “Tu rena ta veni!”… ma esta ave du sinifias… donce: “Ce Tu rena veni!” o ancora plu bon: “Ce veni Tu rena!”, no? Patric
    • Me pensa ancora ce “ce” dona la impresa de un demanda, e donce no conveni. Me no gusta ance me sujesta de “ta ce”. Me gusta tu idea de reversa la ordina de la sujeto e la verbo en tal esclamas de desira: “Ta veni Tu rena!”, “Ta vive la re!”, “Ta vade nos!” Ma esta no susede si la verbo ave un ojeto: “Ta abri nos la caxa!” (?) Simon
    • “Vade nos, omes! Ce nos abri esta maldiseda caxa de merda, diablo! Oxala nun impedi nos, txa!…” Patric
• orijinal, nos ia permete la move de nomes a ante de la verbo per demandas e per comandas. ma nos ia acorda ce esta abitua ta es tro confusante per persones ce no es familial con esta formas de la linguas de europa ueste. jorj

• Jorj, en tu patio tu ia scrive:
  • It can also be used to suggest what in some languages is indicated by the conditional mode, i.e. that the event is in some way dependent on another event occurring, such as in clauses following “then” in “if… then” constructions.
• Ma cada construi con “if … then” espresa ce “the event is in some way dependent on another event occurring”. La moda “condisional” espresa ce la aveni es nonreal en alga sensa – como tu dise ja bon en tu parla inisial sur “irrealis”.
  • si. la dependente e la sujuntiva es sucategorias de “irrealis”.
  • Serta. Ma me punto es ce tu esplica no es intera clar. El sujesta ce cada “conditional sentence” conteni la “conditional mood”, ce no es vera. Simon
  • a, si, aora me comprende. serta, me debe ajunta un clari ala. esce me es coreta ce la sola esemplos ta es situas en la futur ce es serta? “si tu puia la boton, el va comensa.” o ave situas en la pasada o presente ance? jorj
  • Vide asi. En alga frases condisional, “si” es plu simil a “cuando”: “Si la mar es tempestos, la ondas es alta.” E serta, on ave ance situas en la pasada: “Si el ia viaja ier, el ia ariva a la ora des.” En loca de “unrealized”, me ta parla de “imaginary” o “hypothetical”. Simon
    • Esce no es plu coreta dise: “Cuando la mar es tempestos, la ondas es alta.” e “Car el ia viaja ier, el ia ariva a la ora des.” e ancora: “Como tu vole” (= Si tu veux / If you want to)? An si(?) esta vade contra la linguas propre plu conoseda (Romanicas: si ; engles: if ; rusce: esli, bresonica: ma > en esta lingua “ma” es a la mesma tempo: “si”, “ce”, “afince”, “do”, “a!”, “me” posesiva e un corti de “es”… Patric
    • La difere entre “si” e “cuando” pote es sutil, a veses. En deutx, ambos es “wenn”. “Cuando la mar …” es un oserva jeneral ce du cosas aveni a la mesma tempo. “Si la mar …” parla plu sur la situa presente, ma indica ce me no sabe si la mar es oji tempestos. Simil, “si el ia viaja …” indica ce me no sabe si el ia viaja. En “car el ia viaja …”, me sabe ja esta. Simon
• En tempos nonperfeta, la difere si pote es sutil:
  • “Si elle sortait, il restait à la maison, à regarder la télé / Quand elle sortait, il restait à la maison, à regarder la télé.”
• Ma no en perfeta:
  • “Si elle est sortie, il est resté à la maison, à regarder la télé / Quand elle est sortie, il est resté à la maison, à regarder la télé.” Asi, “si” es vera ipotesal e an contrastante…
• Si. En tempos nonperfeta, on parla a modo plu jeneral, de multe veses: “si” e “cuando” sinifia “a la veses cuando …” Ma en tempos perfeta, on parla de un ves spesifada, e donce on sabe ja si la cosa aveni o no, e donce la difere entre “si” e “cuando” deveni importante. Simon

More on “ta”

La moda nonrealida

“Ta” is an optional particle used to indicate verbal modes called “irrealis”, which indicate that the event described by the sentence is one which is or was not realized.

It can be used to suggest what in some languages is suggested by the subjunctive mode, i.e. that the event is wished for, hoped for, prayed for, desired, an opinion, a judgement, or hypothetical, or, conversely, the event is doubted or unlikely.

• Me vole ce el ta ariva pronto.
• Es ia posable ce la avion ta es tarda.
• Nos duta el ta pote leva la auto.

It can also be used to suggest what in some languages is indicated by the conditional mode, i.e. that an unrealized event is in some way dependent on another event occurring, such as in many clauses following “then” in “if… then” constructions. Because the clause preceding “then” is a hypothetical, it, too, can involve “ta”.

• Si me ave la mone, me ta dona alga a tu.
• Si me ta ave la mone, donce me ta dona alga a tu.
• Si me ta pote, me ta vade.

Finally, “ta” can be used to indicate suggestion, such as the hortative mode (“let’s go!”) and polite forms of the imperative (“would you pass the salt?”).

• Nos ta vade!
• Tu ta dona la sal a me, per favore?
• Tu rena ta veni.

The future is inherently hypothetical, so the use of va indicates a more certain future than would be suggested by the use of ta.

Ta is similar to the use in English of the modal “would”. Ta debe would be roughly equivalent to “should”, ta pote to “could”, and ta vole to “would” as a variant of “will”.

Would from various dictionaries:

When would + a verb in English is used to form the conditional tense, it is translated by the conditional tense in Spanish

• 2. (in conditional sentences): I ~ if I could lo haría si pudiera;
  • if I had known, I ~n’t have come si lo hubiera sabido no habría or no hubiera venido
• 3. (expressing wishes): I wish you’d stop pestering me! ¡deja de fastidiarme por Dios!
• 4. (in requests, invitations): ~ you type this for me please? ¿me haría el favor de pasar esto a máquina?;
  • ~ you like to come with us? — I’d love to ¿quieres venir con nosotros? — me encantaría

• 2 (condicional) I would not be surprised if she resigned, no me extrañaría que dimitiese
  • would pay if we could, pagaríamos si pudiéramos
  • (consejo) (if I were you) I would learn Russian, yo (que tú) aprendería ruso ➣ Ver nota en should 3 (posibilidad, probabilidad) that would mean problems, eso conllevaría problemas
• 4 (conjeturas) I would have thought that…, hubiera pensado que…
  • I would think that…, me imagino que…
  • what would it be worth?, ¿cuánto valdrá?
• 5 (voluntad) she just wouldn’t listen to me, sencillamente no quería hacerme caso
  • would you lend me a pound?, ¿me prestas una libra?
  • (ofertas) would you like a coffee?, ¿quieres un café?
  • (aceptación) I would love a beer, me encantaría una cerveza
  • (preferencia) I wish she would shut up, ojalá se callara
  • she would rather be at home, preferiría estar en casa

• would v (in conditional) modo condizionale del verbo -
  • I would buy a car if I had enough money.
  • Comprerei una macchina se avessi abbastanza soldi.
• would v pret (preterit and past participle of will) modo condizionale del verbo -
  • I would go to the library if I had a car to get there.
  • Andrei in biblioteca se avessi un’auto per arrivarci.
• would v (politeness) modo condizionale del verbo -
  • al condizionale potere v aux
  • Would you please pass the salt?
  • Mi passeresti il sale per cortesia?
  • Potresti passarmi il sale per cortesia?

• 1. (expressing the conditional) it ~ be nice if everyone were there, wouldn’t it? ce serait bien si tout le monde était là, n’est-ce pas?;
  • if he had more money, he’d buy a car s’il avait plus d’argent il achèterait une voiture;
  • we ~ have missed the train if we had left later si nous étions partis plus tard, nous aurions raté le train;
  • we wouldn’t have succeeded without him nous n’aurions pas réussi sans lui;
• 2. (in indirect statements or questions) we thought he’d forget nous pensions qu’il oublierait;
  • did she say she ~ be coming? est-ce qu’elle a dit qu’elle viendrait?;
  • I wish he ~ be quiet! il ne pourrait pas se taire!;
• 3. (expressing willingness to act) she wouldn’t listen to me elle ne voulait pas m’écouter;
  • he wouldn’t do a thing to help us il n’a rien voulu faire pour nous aider;
  • they asked me to leave but I wouldn’t ils m’ont demandé de partir mais j’ai refusé;
  • of course you ~ contradict him! bien sûr il a fallu que tu le contredises!;
• 4. (in requests) ~ you give her the message? est-ce que vous voulez bien lui transmettre le message?;
  • switch off the radio, ~ you? éteins la radio, tu veux bien?;
  • ~ you excuse me for a moment? excusez-moi un instant;
• 5. (expressing one’s wishes) ~ you like something to eat? désirez-vous or voulez-vous manger quelque chose?;
  • I ~ like a beer je voudrais une bière;
  • we ~ like to stay another night nous aimerions rester une nuit de plus;
  • she’d have liked to stay here elle aurait aimé rester ici;
  • I wouldn’t mind another slice of cake je prendrais bien un autre morceau de gâteau;
• 6. (offering advice) if I were you, I wouldn’t say anything à ta place, je ne dirais rien;
  • it ~ be better to write il vaudrait mieux écrire;
  • it ~ be a good idea to wait ce serait une bonne idée d’attendre;
  • you ~ do well to check the timetable tu ferais bien de vérifier l’horaire;
• 7. (in assumptions) I ~ have been 12 je devais avoir 12 ans;
  • it ~ have been about midday il devait être à peu près midi;

• would v (in conditional) conditionnel -
  • I would buy a car if I had enough money.
  • J’achèterais une voiture si j’avais assez d’argent.
• would v pret (preterit and past participle of will) conditionnel -
  • I would go to the library if I had a car to get there.
  • J’irais à la bibliothèque si j’avais une voiture pour m’y rendre.
• would v (politeness) pouvoir vi ⇒
  • Would you please pass the salt?
  • Pourrais-tu me passer le sel, s’il te plaît ?

Me trova esta esplicas de la usa de la modas dependente e sujuntiva per magiar en la wikipedia. Estas es multe simil a la usa intendeda de “ta” en lfn:

Use of the conditional:

In a sentence with “if”, unlike in English, the appropriate conditional tense is used in both the “if” clause and the main clause. The present conditional is used to talk about unlikely or impossible events in the present or future, e.g. Ha találkoznál a királynővel, mit mondanál? (“If you met the Queen, what would you say?”) (cf. the second conditional in English). The past conditional is used for past events which did not happen, e.g. Ha nem találkoztunk volna a királynővel, órákkal ezelőtt megérkeztünk volna. (“If we hadn’t met the Queen, we would have arrived hours ago.”) (cf. the third conditional in English).

[edit] Subjunctive

Uses of the subjunctive:

• 1. For a command (i.e. an imperative)
• 2. For a request
• 3. For hesitant questions with 1st singular subject (cf. English “Shall I …?”)
• 4. For suggestions for joint action with 1st plural subject (cf. English “Let’s …”)
• 5. For wishes (3rd person singular and plural)
• 6. In subordinate clauses after verbs expressing orders, requests, suggestions, wishes, permission, etc
• 7. In hogy subordinate clauses expressing purpose

(“hogy” es “ce” ante proposas nomal)

• Lfn no distingui “present conditional” e “past conditional”, natural. Punto 1 pare sujesta ce imperativas e sujuntivas es la mesma cosa en magiar: on intende comandas a la persones 1 e 3? La lista no mensiona la cortesia – posable on intende “for a polite request” en punto 2. Punto 5 no es clar: esce on vole dise ce “el ta dansa” pote sinifia “el vole dansa”? (Ma es plu bon e plu clar si on dise “el vole dansa”, no?) O esce on intende ce “el ta dansa” pote sinifia “me vole ce el dansa”? Si tal, donce punto 4 e punto 5 es esensal la mesma cosa. Me suposa ce punto 7 no pertine a lfn. Simon

Still more on “ta”

• Cuando me vide la parte de la gramatica sur “ta”, me trova ce la indica de la tempo es difisil. Me opina ce “si” sufisi per indica ce la verbo es ipotesal, e donce on debe indica la tempo ala:
  • Me ta es felis si la sol brilia.
  • Si me ia conose, me ta dise tu.
  • Me ta core si tu va core ance.
• Esta paralel la usa de “ta” en frases con un verbo de duta, opina, etc, segueda par un suproposa:
  • Me duta ce tu ta pote gania.
  • Ce me ta era no ia es posable.
  • Me va recorda ce tu no ta aida me.

Many linguists recognize a fourth mood, the conditional (le conditionnel), which is used in almost exactly the same circumstances as the conditional in English. In French, « Je le ferais si j’avais assez de temps » is “I would do it if I had enough time” in English.

1. « Si je le savais, je te le dirais. » (“If I knew it, I would tell you.”)
2. « Ils dirent que je réussirais. » (“They said that I would succeed)

Ancora denova

Orijinal (cuando nos ia ajunta “ta”), me ia pensa de e “ta” e “va” como formas de de nonrealia. “Va” ia es sempre la futur, natural. Ma “ta” ia es intendeda per usa sola en la pasada e la presente, simil a la engles “I would have (done this)” e “I would (do this)”, con la tempo sujesteda sola par la contesto. Me pensa ancora ce la idea de “ta” futur no es nesesada. Comentas?

• La usa de “ta” en desiras e demandas cortes pare futur: “la re ta vive!”, “tu ta abri la porta?”.
  • vera, ma el es un futur “debil”, no? nota ce en demandas, nos usa sempre la presente.
    • El es un futur min serta. “La re va vive” declara un fato suposada, an si la re mori a la dia seguente. Me no comprende ce tu intende par “nos usa sempre la presente”. Simon
      • pardon, me intende comandas: “wash the dishes!”
      • A, si. Simon
    • vera, esta usas de “ta” difere de la otra usas. “la re ta vive” es vera un corti per “me prea ce la re va vive”, e “tu ta abri la porta” es vera un corti per “abri la porta, per favore”. ambos ia es introduida pos la orijinal introdui de “ta”. posable nos no debe usa los?
      • Tu sujesta pare bon. “Ce la re va vive” pare un corti plu bon ce “la re ta vive”, serta. E per la demanda/comanda cortes, on pote dise “tu pote abri la porta, per favore?” Simon
  • ancora, me vide ambos “ta” e “va” como irrealis - “va” per futur, “ta” per non-futur. en la mesma modo, la pasada e la presente es realis - “ia” indica pasada, “-” indica non-pasada. donce, on usa “ta” cuando on parla de un aveni en la pasada o presente ce no es o ia es realida.
    • Esta es refinada, e fasil per comprende. Me gusta. Simon
  • si on segue esta sujeste, es plu bon si nos sujeste ance ce “ta” no es elejable.
    • Si. (Me no gusta paroletas gramatical ce es elejable. Los sujesta ce la strutur no es tan forte como posable. Ma esta es sola me opina 🙂 Simon

• “Ta” indica un aveni imajinada. Nos pote distingui du usas major, ce coresponde jeneral a la difere entre la pasada/presente e la futur:
  • En se usa prima, un aveni imajinada contradise la fatos ja conoseda: nos imajina un mundo diferente. Esta usa ave un relata prosima a la conseta de “si”. “Si la sol ia brilia (ier), me ta es felis (ier).” “Si la sol brilia (oji), me ta es felis (oji).”
  • En se usa du, un aveni imajinada no contradise la fatos, car la fatos no es ancora conoseda: en loca, nos desira o duta (etc) ce la cosa va aveni. “Me desira ce la sol ta brilia (doman).”
    • tu no pensa ce, cuando on dise “me desira ce la sola ta brilia”, on intende ce la sola ta brilia aora? si on intende doman, tu no dise “me desira ce la sol va brilia”?
      • Me no sabe, car la regulas es ancora nonclar. Me debe divina a cada caso. Simon
• Ave a veses un confusa entre la du usas, car nos no conose sempre la fatos pasada o presente, o car nos crede ce nos conose ja la futur. (Nos crede ce nos va esiste ancora doman, per esemplo. E nos pote desira o duta ce avenis pasada o presente es diferente.) Plu, nos omete “ta” cuando la contesto permete. Esta omete aveni en ambos usas, e confusa los plu en nos mentes.
  • me pensa ce nos no “omete el cuando la contesto permete”, nos inclui el cuando nos vole asentua la nonrealia.
    • Si. Me no ia espresa me pensas a modo clar. Simon
• E ave ancora plu confusa cuando nos misca la tempos e dise ce un person futur va ave un desira o un duta, o ce un person pasada ia imajina un presente diferente. Simon
  • me ia crede ce la tempo de desira o duta clari esta, no?
    • Si, ma nos nesesa teni el en mente per evita es malgidada par esemplos de esta spesie. Nos no debe usa tal esemplos como base de la sistem. Simon

Me pensa ance ce nos ia oblida la usa de “debe” e “pote” en simil espresas. Me no crede ce “I doubt he could kill” es la mesma como “I doubt he would kill,” o “I don’t think he should kill” es la mesma como “I don’t think he would kill”. (Me duta ce el pote mata; me duta ce el ta mata; me no crede ce el ta mata; me no crede ce el debe mata)

• Simil, me no crede ce “I doubt he could kill” es la mesma como “I doubt he can kill”. Un esemplo plu comun: “I doubt he can (= will be able to) eat the whole of that pizza.” “I doubt he could (= would be able to) eat the whole of that pizza (even if we gave him all day to do so).” En la prima, nos imajina e duta la futur posable en cual el va come la piza intera. En numero du, nos imajina e duta un futur ce es min posable, car nos imajina la aveni nonprobable ce nos permete el come la piza per tota la dia. Usa “ta” (o “va”) per ambos no pare aida la claria. Simon
  • vera, me no vide un difere sinifiante entre “can” e “could”. me no ta usa “can” pos “doubt”. si la difere es sola un difere de intensia, on pote usa averbos per indica la intensia.
    • Tu no dise: “I doubt I can do that”? Posable esta es un otra difere entre nos du dialetos. Simon
    • Ance: “I doubt I can help you” (I don’t think I can help you). Si me oia “I doubt I could help you”, me espeta oia ance “if I tried” o simil. Simon
    • posable un difere dialetal.
• “I doubt he would kill” implica “if …”, no? Se mata es clar un aveni imajinada, e on nesesa “ta” (an si on pote omete el en pratica). “Could” es “would be able to” (if …), e “should” es “would be obliged to” (if …).
  • tu sujeste ce “could” es “ta pote” e “should” es “ta debe”? interesante.
    • Me usa los a esta modo (entre otra modos…) Simon
• La cosa es confusada car en lfn nos tende usa “debe” a modo debil (= “should”, no “must”).
  • me vide “debe” como “should”, e “nesesa” como “must”.
    • Nos disionario dise ce “debe” es sosial e “nesesa” es fisical, ma esta no pare es vera. Ma ce es la sinifia de “should”? Vera, esta sinifas es tan liscos ce nos debe/nesesa defini multe clar nos intendes, o la discute va deveni un caos de malcomprendes. Simon
• Ave ance la posable ce “ta pote”, “ta debe”, e “ta vole” sinifia a veses ce la pote, la debe, e la vole se mesmas es real, ma ce on eleje iniora los. (I could – if I wanted to – but I’m not going to. I should – but I’m not going to. I would like to – but I’m not going to.) Estas envolve denova un mundo diferente, la mundo de “si”. Simon
  • denova, me crede ce la paroleta “si” sufisi per indica nonrealia, e “ta” sola asentua el.
    • Ma on no ave sempre “si” en la frase. “Esce tu pote labora oji? – Me pote (= e va). / Me ta pote (= ma no va).” Simon

A supra me ia scrive alga pensas vagante e varios. Esce los aida? Simon

• posable.
• O posable me ia susede sola confusa an plu la pitur… Simon
• pare ce (como en multe otra discutes) nos ave un filosofia diferente de lfn. per me, nos debe defini un parola como “ta” e se loca ante la verbo, e donce lasa la usor usa el como el desira. per tu (coreta me si me era), nos debe dona detalias de usa. tu gusta regulas bon definada; me gusta un grado plu grande de libria.
  • Esperanto no ia ave regulas clar a la comensa, e la resulta es ce el conteni aora cosas strana. (Me esemplo favoreda es ce la junta de “post” (pos) es “post kiam”, la junta de “antaŭ” (ante) es “antaŭ ol”, e la junta de “ĝis” (asta) es simple “ĝis”!) Me senti bon cuando me sabe ce me segue la regulas. Si la regulas no es clar, me deveni confusada. Ma me no vole insista ce tota es rijida fisada – la laxia es bon, ma on nesesa sabe do la punto sentral es! Me no cexa contra usas metaforal, ma on nesesa comprende cual sinifia es la base ce on estende. E con parolas como “ta”, ce cambia direta la cualias de la verbos, un descrive neblos no sufisi, en me opina. Parlores pote estende “ta” a usas nova, serta, ma si nun comprende clar la intende de la parola, la comunica deveni difisil. Nos ia ave un esemplo an en esta paje, cuando tu ia comprende “me desira ce la sola ta brilia” a modo diferente de me, car la usa de “ta” no es clar per me. Simon
  • Tu dise “nos debe defini un parola como ‘ta’” – esta es un idea eselente, ma do es la defini? Simon

• me demanda a me si “ta” debe es un verbo aidante, como “debe”, “pote”, e “vole”? donce, on pote usa “ia” e “va” ante el, e nos no nesesa multe regulas complicada de usa. el ta es simple un verbo aidante, como “ja” es simple un averbo. (nota: par “verbo aidante” me intende un verbo usada ante otra verbos en un cadena de verbos, ma un ce no pote es usada per otra cosas.)
  • Me gusta multe esta idea. Vera, ance “ia” e “va” opera como verbos aidante, no? Si on aseta esta, on pote clari plu fasil per ce on pote omete los en parla reportada, e per ce on senti un tende per dise “me veni doman” en loca de “me va veni doman”. Simon
  • me senti nunca un tende per dise “me veni doman”!
    • An en suproposas pos “si”? “Me va aida tu si tu va visita me doman”? Simon
  • me nota ce, si “ta” deveni un verbo aidante, deveni difisil usa el ante “debe”, “pote”, etc.
    • No plu difisil ce “me vole pote nada”. Simon
• plu: nos pote ave partes de la gramatica ce indica como on pote (ma no nesesa) tradui formas de linguas natural (como la perfeta, la continuante, la sujuntiva, la dependente, etc), en loca de instruis detaliada de la usa de “ta”, “ja”, “es …nte”, etc.
  • Esta es un bon idea, ma el es difisil sin dona esemplos en linguas natural. Nos nesesa presenta un esplica consisa de “ta”, “-nte”, etc, e a pos mostra multe esemplos pratical e varios de se usas, posable con comentas ce “esta es simil a la perfeta en otra linguas”, etc. La lejor pote fa alora se concluis propre. Acel es plu nonperos ce atenta un esplica detalios, me acorda. Simon

Possibilities:

• va indicates an event that will or may occur in the future.
• ta indicates an event that is or was not real.
  • events that one wishes would be real or would have been real.
    • me ia espera ce tu ta veni. - oce, esta sona “contrareal”. “I hoped that you would come - but you didn’t”. me vera, el no sujeste si tu ia veni o no. “I hoped that you would come - and you did!
      • You’re still equating the conditional “would” with the past-shifted “will”. If you can justify this equation, I’ll be happy to take it on board. But it seems like an English/Romance idiom to me. “I hoped that you would come” means (most probably) that my hope was: “You will come.” (me ia espera ce tu va veni) Because “would” is ambiguous in such cases in English, the sentence could also mean (less probably) that my hope was: “You would come (in a less likely future, e.g. if I were to invite you, which I’m not actually intending to do).” (me ia espera ce tu ta veni). Simon
    • me espera ce tu va veni.
  • events that one doubts are real or were real.
    • me ia duta ce tu ta veni. “I doubted that you would come - but I was wrong! - and I was right!
      • Same comment. You’re right that the “ta” doesn’t indicate whether I was wrong or right to doubt. “Ta” is just there to push “tu veni” into a less probable future, and contrasts with “va”. Simon
    • me duta ce tu va veni.
  • events that may or may not occur if another occurs.
    • si tu ia veni, me ta selebra. “If you came, I would celebrate”. okay: this one only makes sense to say if you in fact did not come. nevertheless, I can’t see using the past, present, or future tense for “selebra” - because it never got to happen, it remains eternally in the imagination.
      • But do we not need to distinguish “if you came yesterday, I would have celebrated then” and “if you came yesterday, I would be celebrating now”? Simon
    • si tu veni, me va selebra. - this one, of course, may or may not be realized.
      • Agreed. But there’s also the possibility of “si tu veni, me ta selebra”, which implies that you’re less likely to come. Simon

• The way these examples are arranged suggests that “ta” is simply the past equivalent of “va”. I think you agree with me that that can’t be the case.
  • I just felt that those examples show the differences most clearly. but, now that you mention it, I can’t think of examples that don’t fit this pattern. “ta” seems to be the same as some meanings of the english “would be -ing” or “would have -ed”, while “va” is the same as “will”.
    • The examples imply that we can only use “ta” if the main verb is in the past tense. I thought you’d suggested that the present tense was also possible. “I would go out now if it wasn’t/weren’t raining.” Surely that needs “ta”? Simon
    • yes, that is what I meant by “would be -ing”.
    • OK, but you also said you couldn’t think of examples that don’t fit “the pattern”, which was that “ta” is the past equivalent of “va”, i.e. the future of the past, as in a story about someone who wondered what to do next. Simon
• Taking into account all your good ideas above, the key thing about “ta” in these examples is that it implies “but you didn’t”. If the main verb was in the present tense, “ta” would imply “but you’re not”. “Me ia duta ce tu va veni” means “I doubted you would come (but here you are, nonetheless)”.
  • I don’t see that. “I doubted that you would come” does not imply that you did - or didn’t - come, only that at the time that I doubted, your coming was nonfactual.
    • At the time that I doubted, your coming was in the future, so by definition it was nonfactual. It’s just the normal future seen from the past – there’s no need for “ta”. Besides, I can see two possible meanings of “I doubted that you would come”, which are easier to discern if we consider what the direct speech would have been: 1) “I doubt that you will come”; 2) “I doubt that you would come” (e.g. “if I were to invite you” – a more remote future, because it involves additional conditions). Are you distinguishing the two? Simon
    • I think we are misunderstanding each other here. but no, I would not distinguish between these two, unless the “if” clause were included. at least in english. one of the things I am suggestion, of course, is that we don’t usa “ta” for future events. but I am uncertain about any of this.
      • I’m also unsure about whether “ta” is meaningful for future events. It’s certainly incompatible with “va”, but once we’ve worked out what the central meaning of “ta” is, we may be able to derive a useful metaphorical extension to future events (which may indeed turn out to be “la re ta vive” and polite requests). But that’s a side issue. We need to concentrate on the use of “ta” with present and past first. Simon
      • Surely there’s a difference between “I will come if you call” and “I would come if you called = if you were to call”? And isn’t this the same as the difference between “I doubt you will come” and “I doubt you would come”? Simon
      • there is? I do not see any difference between the two sentences in both pairs. what difference do you see? (I would never say “I doubt you would come” - perhaps my dialect)
        • Strange – earlier in this discussion, you gave the example “I doubt he would kill”, and I objected that I would only say that in a remote conditional sense (implying “if something else were to happen”). For me the difference between “I will come if you call” and “I would come if you called” is simply the difference between a likely future possibility and a more remote one. I can imagine a repairs company advertising that “we will be there if you need us”, but not “we would be there if you (were to) need us”, because the latter implies that the need is very unlikely to arise! “I doubt you will come” is what I would normally say, but if “you come” is dependent on a remote condition, I would say “I doubt you would come”, e.g. “I doubt you would come even if you had the day off”. Simon
• The essence of “ta” seems to be counterfactual: the idea of “… but it isn’t”. This is why “la re ta vive” and “tu ta abri la porta” seem weird. The latter seems to imply “I really wish you’d open the door, but you’re not going to, are you?” Perhaps also for this reason, “ta” can indeed be optional, because it’s just a way of emphasizing a quality that already exists in some contexts.
  • as I mention above, “counterfactual” is not the same as “nonfactual”.
    • Good point. A counterfactual future is meaningless, because the facts don’t yet exist to be contradicted. But is there a difference in the past and present? “If I had a million dollars” is counterfactual, because I don’t, and nonfactual for the same reason. (“Nonfactual” isn’t a normal word, but I’m assuming it means “not factual, not relating to the known facts”. The difference is like that between “bad” and “not good”.) Simon
    • there would certainly be a difference in examples like the one you used, where “I doubt something” suggests that the something did happen (counterfactual). “nonfactual” means that, at the time of doubt, the something was still uncertain.
    • Nonfactual = not yet actualized. Simon
    • exactly. (or not yet realized, to stick with “real”)
    • The more common meaning of “realized” (as in “I suddenly realized I was late”) makes it less suitable here. Simon
    • good point, at least in english.
• An interesting example to ponder: “I could have done so much more!” Simon
  • “me ia pote fa multe plu!” no? esta frase no nesesa “ta”. el no ave un sinifia nonreal: a un momenta en la pasada, me, en realia, no pote fa multe plu.
    • Pardona si me continua en engles, ma me vole evita riscas de malcomprende. “Me ia pote fa multe plu” means “I was able to do much more”. I intended my example to mean “I would have been able to do much more” (i.e. if I’d had the chance… but that chance has been denied me). The English word “could” is ambiguous. I think that’s confusing matters. Simon
    • I would think that “I was able to do much more” does not really imply that I did or didn’t follow up. but you are right - the “if” clause is implied when we use “would” in this example.
    • I can say “once the kids went outside, I was able to do much more”. The kids did go outside, and I did succeed in doing more in their absence. This is clearly different from “I would be able to do so much more” (also reducible to “could”), where I’m talking counterfactually. It’s actually a line from a recent episode of Doctor Who, where the Doctor knows he’s about to give up his life. He knows he won’t be able to do anything more: he’s about to die. He’s saying “if things were different and I didn’t have to die here and now, I would be able to do so much more”. I think this is an extremely useful distinction, and seems to me to be a natural fit for “ta”. (Incidentally, “I could have done so much more” simply shifts his perspective to that of a historian looking back. The meaning doesn’t change, just the tense.) Simon
• nos ave en engles un grupo de parolas multe ambigua e ce no ave la mesma distribui ce se traduis a lfn:
  • “can” - lfn “pote”
  • “could”, “could’ve” - lfn “ia pote”, “ta pote”
    • O egal a “would have been able to”, e me pensa ce esta implica “ta”. Simon
    • tu es coreta. “could” es ambigua en engles.
  • “will”, “shall” - lfn “va”
  • “would”, “would’ve” - lfn “ta”
    • = “ta” cuando “would” implica “if”, ma “would” pote es ance la pasada de “will”. Simon
    • it doesn’t really make sense, does it, that “will” - marker of future tense - should have a past form. unless you mean “will” in the sense of “I will this to happen”, which is rather antiquated. I can’t imagine anyone saying “yesterday, I would this to happen”!
    • I’m talking here about standard sequence of tenses in direct speech in English. “I have seen it” – “he said that he had seen it”. “I will see it” – “he said that he would see it”. That’s all I mean by the past variant of the future. It’s too complicated and idiomatic a feature for a simple auxiliary language like LFN. That’s why I believe that the indirect tense should be the same as the direct tense. Subordinate tenses are relative to the tense of the main verb. Complex tenses work cleanly and logically then. And no, I wasn’t referring to “I will this to happen” – the past tense of that is “I willed this to happen”, anyway! Simon
    • si, natural. la portuges clama esta “la futur en la pasada”. per lfn, si esta “futur” es real, on no usa “ta”; si el es “nonreal”, on pote usa “ta”.
    • I can’t tell from “si, natural” whether you’re saying “yes, of course, I now see what you mean, thanks for clarifying” or “yes, of course, that’s obvious, stop telling me things I already know”. This makes it difficult to know how to reply 🙂 I agree entirely that “la futur en la pasada” should work exactly like “la futur en la presente”. Simon
  • “want” - lfn “vole”
  • “should” - lfn “debe”
  • “should’ve” - lfn “ia debe”
  • “must” - lfn “nesesa”
    • En franses e espaniol, a la min, “debe” es “must”, e “ta debe” es “should”. “Nesesa” es “need, require”. “Should” permete ce me iniora me debe, ma “must” es plu forte. Natural, “should” en engles ave ance otra sinifias (“I shouldn’t do that if I were you”, “I should think so”, etc), ma estas no pertine multe asi. “Should’ve” es interesante: en engles, si “I should go” sinifia “I am obliged to go”, donce “I should’ve gone” pote sinifia o “I was (then) obliged to go” o “I am (now) obliged to have gone, i.e. things would be better now if I had gone then”. Simon
    • I know, but the french/spanish use of “debe” always seemed idiomatic to me. si nos usa “ta debe” per “should”, donce ce es la sinifia de “ia debe”?
    • There’s a difference between physically requiring something (“nesesa”), and having the moral or social obligation or duty to do something (“debe”). I think it would be neat to use “debe” for this basic moral obligation, and “ta debe” to convey the idea that I’m choosing to ignore the obligation. It’s the difference between “I have to cook dinner now” and “I ought to cook dinner now (but I can’t be bothered)”. Simon
    • oce. that works for me.

Here’s where I am at this point - and I notice it is essentially where I was to begin with!

“Ta” is an optional particle that is used to emphasize that the event described in the clause or sentence is not real (hypothetical, imagined, in the mind of the speaker) at the time indicated by other parts of the sentence or previous sentences. For example, one may use “ta”…

• when the event is conditional upon another event:
  • If I were rich, I would buy a Mercedes. Si j’étais riche, j’acheterais une Mercedes. Si me ta es rica, me ta compra un Mercedes.
    • This is fine. Simon
  • He said he would bring wine. Il a dit qu’il apporterait du vin. El ia dise ce el ta trae alga vin.
    • But this example doesn’t involve one event being conditional upon another. It’s just the future in the past, and needs “va”. What does “me ta trae alga vin” mean in the present? Is it a polite request? Whatever it means, by the rule for reported speech that we’ve agreed several times above, “me ta trae alga vin” has to mean the same thing in past reported speech too. Simon
      • bon - me acorda.
• when an event is wished for, hoped for, a matter of belief or opinion, doubtful, or contrary to fact:
  • I wish that you would help me. Je veux que tu m’aides. Me vole ce tu ta aida me.
    • This is fine, because it’s the indirect-speech version of a polite request. Simon
  • I don’t think he is coming. Je ne crois pas qu’il vienne. Me no pensa ce el ta veni.
    • I don’t see why this second example needs “ta”, other than to slavishly imitate idiomatic subjunctive usage in the Romance languages. His coming is perfectly real within the bounds of the thought. The fact that the thought is then negated is irrelevant to the content of the thought itself, and we’ve agreed that the content of a clause doesn’t change just because the clause becomes subordinate. Furthermore, insisting on “me no pensa ce el ta veni” here makes it confusing to use the same sentence to mean “I don’t think that he would come (even if you were to invite him in the future)”. You argue that the presence of “si” is enough to distinguish the two. I say it isn’t, because we also need to be able to distinguish “I don’t think that he is coming now (even if you’ve invited him)”. Simon
      • how about “I think he may come”? or “I doubt he would come”? are they in the same league as “I don’t think he is coming”?
      • “He may come” is valid in direct speech. It just means “it’s possible that he will come”. In LFN, I would translate this as “el va veni posable” or “cisa el va veni” or some such permutation. “I think he may come” is therefore just “me pensa ce el va veni posable” or whatever. To me, “I doubt he would come” has a strong conditional sense, and I find myself asking “if what?” I would translate it as “me duta ce el ta veni (si nos ta invita el, per esemplo)”. Maybe it has a different usage in your dialect of English – if so, can you unpack it into something clearer? Simon
    • You’ll say that “ta” is optional, and it’s only there to emphasize the “nonrealia”. But this is a different type of “nonrealia” and is too easy to misunderstand as the conditional type. Note that you could also have the conditional type in the example: “I don’t think he would come if you asked him.” If “ta” is already an optional way of emphasizing the fact that a thought is imagined, it can’t also indicate that something is itself imagined within the context of that imaginary thought. This all seems self-evident to me 😉
• when an act is requested or suggested:
  • Will you have some oysters? Vous prendriez des huîtres? Tu ta ave alga ostras?
    • That’s fine. Simon
  • Could you help me with this document? Pourriez-vous m’aider avec ce document? Tu ta aida me con esta documento?
    • That’s fine. Simon

Ave asi me atenta: Simon

• Most verbs denote actions in the past, present, or future of the real world. But some verbs denote actions in an alternative world that the speaker imagines. These verbs can denote actions in the past, present, or future of the imagined world.
  • Past – something that could have happened, but didn’t.
  • Present – something that could be happening, but isn’t.
  • Future – something that could happen in the future, but isn’t expected to.
• Such verbs are introduced by the particle “ta”, which follows “ia” or “va”. “Ia” and “va” can be omitted, leaving just “ta”, if the context makes them redundant.
• Such verbs usually depend on a condition – if a cause were different, then an effect would be different:
  • Past – Si me madre ia ta es ala, el ia ta es joios. If my mother had been there, she’d have been delighted.
  • Present – Si me madre ta es asi, el ta es joios. If my mother were here, she’d be delighted.
  • Past and Present – Si me ia ta es ala, me ta ave aora un foto. If I’d been there, I would have a photo now.
  • Future – An si me ta es aora plu rica, me va ta es plu povre pos un anio. Even if I were richer now, I would be poorer in a year’s time.
• Sometimes the condition is merely implied:
  • Past – Me ia ta pote dormi per oras! I could have slept for hours! (if you hadn’t woken me)
  • Present – Un computador ta aida tu. A computer would help you. (if you’d only learn how to use one)
• An idiomatic way of phrasing a polite suggestion is to use “ta” in a question. By presenting the suggestion as if it related to an imaginary world, the speaker makes it easier for the other person to decline:
  • Tu ta abri la porta, per favore? Could you open the door, please?
  • Tu ta bevi un cafe? Would you like a coffee?
• The use of “ia”, “va”, and “ta” is not altered in any way when a main sentence is turned into a subordinate clause, as in reported speech:
  • Me va trae la vino. I will fetch the wine.
  • El ia dise ce el va trae la vino. He said that he would fetch the wine. (This is not the same “would” as implied by “ta”!)
  • Si me ta es rica, me ta compra un iato. If I were rich, I would buy a yacht.
  • El ia dise ce si el ta es rica, el ta compra un iato. He said that if he were rich, he would buy a yacht.
  • El va esplica ce si el ta es rica, el ta compra un iato. He will explain that if he were rich, he would buy a yacht.

• Difisil es ancora trova esemplos convinsente per “ta” en la futur. Ma pare plu bon si nos lasa la posable, an si (par se natur) el no va apare multe comun. El es simil a alga usas de “may” e “might” e “could” en engles: “wait long enough and it could happen”. Cisa nos ta dise “e el va aveni posable” o “e el ta pote aveni”. Ma clar, on pote parla de un futur imajinada: “if we were to visit you tomorrow, there would be five for dinner.” Simon

• Me pensa aora ce “ta” ta opera bon como un averbo, poneda pos la verbo, simil a “ja”. A esta modo on pote usa el con “ia” e “va” sin problemes. Simon
  • Me no plu crede esta! Simon

• tu recorda, natural, ce me ia base “ta” sur la “ta” de creol aitian. ala, el es clamada la “conditional” (dependente), e el pote combina con verbos aidante como esta:
  • would/would have - ta
    • = would X, would have X-ed
  • could/may/might - ta ka (lfn: ta pote)
    • = would be able to X, would perhaps X Simon
  • could/may/might have - ta ka / te ka* (ia pote)
    • = would have been able to X, would have perhaps X-ed
  • should/ought to - ta dwe (ta debe)
    • = would have to X
  • should/ought to have - ta dwe / te dwe* (ia debe)
    • = would have to have X-ed
• en frases simple, los usa “ta”, en frases plu complicada, los usa “te” (pasada)
  • Estas es bon: los es simple condisionales imajinada. Esce aitian usa “ta” ance en “la re ta vive!” e “nos ta dansa!” e “me duta ce tu ta veni” e “tu ta abri la porta?” Esta otras es la usas controversa (a grados varios) en lfn. Simon
• It is used for hypothetical actions or events, to soften a command into a request, and to express wishes.
  • OK, but does “tu veni” in “me duta ce tu veni” count as a hypothetical event? Simon
  • I would certainly say so. “tu veni” is completely in my imagination, purely hypothetical, and I doubt that this hypothetical situation will be realized. however, I would personally prefer “tu va veni” if the main clause is present, since the future is essentially hypothetical already. I would tend to use “tu ta veni” only if the main clause was in the past.
  • Exactly. I don’t see why you’re associating “ta” with the past. The hypothetical nature of “tu veni” is the same whether or not we say it in the present or report it as having been said in the past. I agree that it’s meaningful to say “me (ia) duta ce tu ta veni”, but it’s also meaningful to say “me (ia) duta ce tu va veni”. The former is more hypothetical than the latter. I think we agree on this. You’ve mentioned several times the idea that “ta” is a weaker, more remote, less probable, more imaginary sort of future than the “va” future. There’s certainly a grey area between “ta” and “va”, but many cases fall clearly into one or the other. Simon

• Ce tu pensa de esta frases:
  • Mwen pa ta renmen li di sa - I would not like him to say that - Me no ta gusta ce el dise acel.
  • Mwen pa we ki sa mwen ta kapab vle anko - I don’t see what I could desire more. - Me no vide ce me ta pote desira plu.
  • Li di li ta jwe domino - He said he would play dominoes. - El dise ce el ta jua dominos.
  • Ou ta vle pote panyen-sa-a ban mwen? - Would you want to carry this basket for me? - Tu ta vole porta esta sesto per me?
  • M’ta vle eseye diri ak djondjon. - I’d like to try rice and beans. - Me ta vole proba alga “djondjon”.
  • M’ kwe li ta ede nou. - I think he would help you. - Me pensa ce el ta aida tu.
• Me gusta tota de estas, con eseta de “li di li ta jwe domino”. An esta es bon si “di” es presente (como en la tradui lfn) e la tradui “said” en engles es un era. Simon
• dise a me, per favore, per ce tu no gusta acel frase en la pasada, ma tu gusta el en la presente. me no comprende.
  • Pardona: me no ia espresa me a modo clar. “El dise ce el ta jua” and “el ia dise ce el ta jua” are both fine, but they imply an “if”. What I don’t like is “el ia dise ce el ta jua” in the sense of simply reporting the fact that he said “me va jua”. In English, we change the “will” to “would” there, but it’s a different sense of “would” from the one in “I would play if I understood the rules” (me ta jua si me ta comprende la regulas). “He said that he would (= was going to) play” should be “el ia dise ce el va jua”. Simon

• Como esperanto defini la sinifia e usa de -u e -us?
  • -u indica un comanda (o un desira espresada como un comanda). “Helpu min!” = help me! On omete normal la sujeto cuando el es “tu” o “vos”, ma on inclui el per otra persones: “Mi helpu vin!” = let me help you! “Ni vidu!” = let’s see! On usa -u ance per fa sujestas cortes: “Ĉu ni dancu?” = shall we dance? “Ĉu mi helpu?” = shall I help? (forma demandal de “let me help”). On usa -u en suproposas: “Mi ordonas, ke vi dancu” = I order her to dance. “Mi volas, ke ŝi kantu” = I want her to sing. “Ŝi petis, ke mi helpu” = She asked me to help. -u no indica un tempo, ma par la natur de comandas, el refere usual a la futur.
  • -us indica un ata imajinada. “Se mi estus riĉa, mi estus felica” = if I were rich, I’d be happy. El no indica un tempo: “Se mi konus vin antaŭ du jaroj, mi helpus vin” = if I’d known you two years ago, I’d have helped you. Ma multe parlores (influeda par se linguas propre) no gusta usa -us per indica un tempo pasada, e los usa “estus -inta” (would be having -ed) en loca (an cuando on prefere normal evita verbos composada de acel spesie): “Se mi estus koninta vin antaŭ du jaroj, mi estus helpinta vin.” On usa -us ance en demandas cortes: “Ĉu mi povus havi la skribilon?” = could I have the pen? Plu, on usa el comun (ma no sempre) pos “kvazaŭ”, un sujunta ce sinifia “como si”, car la compara es imajinada: “mi sentis min, kvazaŭ mi sonĝus” = I felt as if I were dreaming.
  • Esperanto ave la regula ce la verbo en parla reportada es la mesma como la verbo en parla direta.
  • Si tu pote leje esperanto, esta lias clari eselente la usa de -u e -us:
    • http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/verboj/vola.html
    • http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/verboj/imaga.html

Segue “imaga.html”:

“Ta” es usada per atas e states nonreal, imajinada, o fantasial. “Ta” no indica un tempo:

• ta labora - la ata “labora” es imajinada.
• ta es - la stato “es” es imajinada.
• Si me ta es rica, me no ta labora.
• Si me ta es sana, me ta es felis.
• Si el ta sabe ce me es asi, el ta veni direta a me.
• Si me ta abita en un palas!
  • (me acorda con esta defini e usas de “ta”.)

On pote ance usa “ta” per fa demandas plu jentil o cortes:

• Me ta desira compra alga cosas. (?)
• Me ta pote ave la pen?
• Tu ta parla alga plu silente, per favore?
  • (me demanda a me si esta forma es nesesada. per ce no simple ajunta “per favore”? “Me pove ave la pen, per favore?” nos ia ajunta esta forma per myaleee, ci es sempre multe cortes. ma aora me crede ce esta forma complica cosas tro multe.)
  • Un bon razona. En fato, alga parlores de esperanto evita esta usa. Los regarda el como tro influeda par abituas en linguas propre. An tal, el ave un lojica: “would I be able to have the pen?” implica “if it’s not a problem for you” o simil. Simon

“Ta” es usada frecuente con la paroleta “si”, ce monstra un depende, ma “si” no nesesa sempre la usa de “ta”. Tota depende de la sensa. Si on parla clar de un cosa imajinal, on usa “ta”, ma si es posable ce la ata o state es real, on no usa “ta”:

• Si el ta es asi, el ta es stonada par la desordina.
• Si el es asi, el es stonada par la desordina.
  • (vera, me no comprende frase du. la usa de “si” asi sujesta a me ce on no sabe si el es asi o si el es stonada - e donce do el es e si el es stonada es sola imajinal)
    • Imajina ce tu es en un grupo grande de persones a un conserta. Tu pote dise: “If he’s here, he’s no doubt enjoying the music.” La frase du es de esta spesie, me pensa. Esta es simil a la difere entre “va” e “ta” en otra frases ce nos ia discute. “If he were here” implica ce me sabe ce el no es asi; “if he’s here” implica ce me no sabe si el es asi. Simon

Me vide, en “Povus, devus kaj volus”, per ce tu ave la senti ce “ta” sujeste contrarealia. ma me no acorda.

• Me no deriva la idea de “contrarealia” de “povus, devus kaj volus”, ma simple de “-us” (ce pare multe simil a “ta”, e a alga usas de “would” e la tempos condisional en la linguas romanica). De “povus, devus kaj volus” me ia sujesta sola la idea de usa “ta pote”, “ta debe” e “ta vole” per indica ce me iniora la pote, debe e vole. Ma esta es serta un idiom de esperanto, e me no cexa si tu no gusta el. El furni simple un sinifia usos per “ta pote”, “ta debe” e “ta vole”, ce ta es strana e no multe usos sin esta idiom. Simon

What do you think about “let’s go”, “thy will be done”, “long may he reign”, etc? I think we could use “lasa”: “lasa nos vade”, “lasa tu vole es fada”, “longa lasa el rena”. ma “long live the king”?

• In Esperanto, all of these are -u, because -u includes wishes. We can’t do this in LFN (even if we wanted to slavishly copy Esperanto, which we don’t). Simon
  • of course, slavishly copying esperanto is the last thing I would want! 🙂
    • On the other hand, to rule out a good idea just because Esperanto has it would be totally foolish. I’m talking generically here, rather than specifically about Esperanto’s use of -u. Simon
  • but aren’t the objects of wishes “atas e states nonreal, imajinada, o fantasial”???
    • Here’s Esperanto’s take on that. Again, I’m not saying it’s the right way to go, just pointing it out. Some wishes are more imaginary than others. Note that in English we say “I hope you will come” but “I wish you would come”. What would you say in LFN? In Esperanto, both would normally be plain future, although the latter might just about tolerate -us. I’m suggesting that the difference between “va” and “ta” in such sentences is that “ta” is more imaginary, more remote, less likely. “Me desira ce tu ta veni” suggests that I don’t hold out much hope of seeing you. Perhaps the reason “I hope you would come” sounds odd is that it’s almost contradictory to hope for something that you simultaneously believe to unlikely. Simon
    • I believe that, in english, “I hope you will come” is a pretty simple statement, while “I wish you would come” is more intense. the “would” actually just intensifies the desire, i.e. the example isn’t relevant to our lfn discussion. but then again, it could be differences in our dialects. if you haven’t noticed already, you and I speak two different languages! 🙂
      • I agree! “Would” there just emphasizes “tu no es asi”, by making “tu veni” seem more remote. In my dialect of English, I can’t say “I wish you will come”. “Wish” simply requires “would” or (the remnants of the English subjunctive, as in “I wish I weren’t so tired”). I’m keen to avoid this sort of bizarre arbitrary requirement in LFN. Simon
• There’s technically a difference between “let us go” said by hostages (which would definitely be “lasa nos vade”) and “let’s go” as a proposed action. (You could argue that “libri nos” would be better for the former, because “vade” is a bit too literal a translation of the idiomatic sense of English “go” there. So here’s a better example: “let us drink” said by people who are being denied refreshment and “let’s drink” as a proposed action.) Simon
  • I’m not so sure: “let’s go” is a command form, addressed to us, to release ourselves for departing. not an idiom, really. with commands, the subject is usually understood to be you, but context could easily indicate we. but it’s not important.
  • I agree entirely that “let’s go” is a command addressed to us, but “lasa nos vade” is a command addressed to you. That’s the only problem I have with it. When I said “let us go” (the hostage form) was idiomatic, I was referring to the sense of “go” (= go free), not the “let’s X” command construction. Simon
• The examples are effectively shortened forms of “me desira ce nos va/ta vade”, “me desira ce on va/ta fa tu vole”, and “me desira ce el va/ta rena longa”. Including “va” or “ta” there seems pedantic and pointless and clumsy. We don’t insist on a tense marker in commands, even though these often refer to the future. Simon
• I don’t have a suggestion for how to translate these shortened forms into LFN, other than by using “ta” or by introducing some other grammatical feature (which would be overkill). “Ta” is unsatisfactory because it’s idiomatic. You can justify it by assuming it’s short for “thy will would be done if my wishes were met” or some such thing. I personally have no huge objection to using “ta” here, because these phrases are of a fixed type and easily recognizable. The same is true of polite requests. Simon
• “Lasa” is OK, but it feels a bit idiomatic. (Not that there’s anything enormously wrong with idioms, provided they’re not complicated and impenetrable.) How about “ta ce” as an LFN specialty? “Ta ce nos vade!”, “ta ce tu vole es fada”, “ta ce el rena longa”, etc. Simon
  • no mal. me razona orijinal de usa “ta” per frases como estas es ce on pote dise en engles “would that…”. “thy will be done” es vera un corti de “we pray that thy will be done”, which still justifies the use of “ta”, no? (aora me scrive frases en engles e lfn simultan! ai!)
    • (Imajina me confusa, cuando me ia scrive en lfn sur la usa de -u e -us, con traduis en engles!) Putting “ta” onto “be done” in “we pray that thy will be done” seems odd, because it seems like we’re praying for something implausible or remotely conditional. Thy will would be done… if what? Surely the verb “pray” is enough to indicate that the object is imaginary? This is the same as my argument against using “ta” with “duta”. By not using “ta” here, we retain the ability to add tense to the subordinate verb. Imaginary actions are distributed in time just as much as real actions are. “We pray/hope/doubt that the train wasn’t derailed on purpose”, for example. Simon
      • but if that is the case (that some words are enough to indicate that the object is imaginary), how do we define the use of “ta” (usada per atas e states nonreal, imajinada, o fantasial)?
        • I think it’s a question of relativity within multi-tiered structures. Consider “vos va espera ce el no ia dise ce el va canta!” – the singing lies in the future of the saying, which lies in the past of the hoping, which in turn lies in the future of the utterance. I don’t think it’s any different with “ta”. “Ta” represents a time, just as much as “va” and “ia” (and their absence) do. But “ta” represents an imaginary time, like an alternative parallel timeline in science fiction. Points in the alternative timeline that correspond to our real past or present are counterfactual; points that correspond to our real future can only be deemed unlikely.
        • In “nos va prea ce on no ia intende ce la tren va salta de la reles”, the praying lies in the future, but when it occurs, its content will refer to an intending that lies in its past, and whose content was: “the train will derail”. The imaginary nature of the intending is adequately set up by the verb “prea”, to which the rest is relative. We could say “la tren ta salta” if the likelihood of the derailment was itself dependent on a more remote condition being met: the “ta” there would be relative to the more remote condition, not the other way round.
        • “Nos va prea ce on no ia intende ce la tren ta salta de la reles si el conteni plu ce sento persones” – the flat, linear structure of a sentence creates mild ambiguities here (which we don’t need to worry about): how much of the rest of the sentence is governed by the “si” clause? Provided we can deduce that (and we can, given a context), we can easily work out the relativity of the various parts to one another. I’m not suggesting that we should encourage complex sentences like that in LFN, though!
        • “Ta” isn’t the only way to indicate the imaginary timeline. Similarly, “va” isn’t the only way to indicate the future: I’ve suggested that “doman” is sufficient – we certainly say “veni doman!” not “va veni doman!”, and we probably say “tu pote veni doman?” not “tu va pote veni doman?”. And when we say “me desira ce tu canta”, we’re not wishing for something that’s already happening – the present tense of “canta” isn’t absolute, but relative to “desira”. We could say “me desira ce tu va canta” to clarify, but it’s not the sort of thing that needs clarifying. “Me desira ce tu ta canta” therefore seems doubly redundant. Simon
        • me dise “me desira ce tu va canta” e “me ia desira ce tu ta canta”. sola en un comanda pote on cade “va”.
          • Per ce “ta” es elejable si “va” e “ia” no es? Simon
• multe bon razonas. me acorda, e cuando tu vole, posable tu pote cambia la gramatica per refleta no discutes. me reserva la direto de cambia me mente, natural - an si me es un dole en la colo! jorj
  • Tu es nunca un dole en la colo. Me va pospone cambia la gramatica asta la fini de semana. Esta dona ancora tempo per cambias de mente! Simon

Pote nos acorda ce…

• debe = must
• ta debe = should, ought to, should have, ought to have
• pote = can, may
• ta pote = could, might, could have, might have
  • … o no?
• Serta. (Me ia pensa ce tu no acorda estas, car tu ia dise ce tu desacorda con “Povus, devus kaj volus”.) Ma nos debe dona traduis plu clar, car multe de esta parolas es forte ambigua en engles. Me sujesta: Simon
  • debe x = must X, have to X
  • ia debe X = had to X, did have to X, was having to X
  • ta debe X = would have to X; should X, ought to X; should have X-ed, ought to have X-ed
  • pote X = can X, be able to X, have the ability to X; may X, might X, be allowed to X, have the right to X
  • ia pote X = could X, was able to X; was allowed to X
  • ta pote X = could X, would be able to X; might X, would be allowed to X
• Multe bon! 🙂

(Me ajunta esta a la mesma momento ce tu ajunta tu sujestes)

• Me sujeste ce nos sutrae de la regulas ofisial la usa de “ta” per indica cortesia, e sustitui “ta ce…” (como tu sujeste) per la otra usa de “ta”. MA me sujeste ce nos no coreta persones ce usa “ta” en esta modas. esta no es cortes, e me crede ce la lingua debe crese natural.
  • Si – coreti es noncortes, estra cuando la person dise ce el bonveni coretis. Me pensa ce la parlores (car los es tan multe, no? 😉 va gusta esta cambia, car el fa la linguaje es plu clar. Simon
• Me gusta la defini de la gramatica esperanto:
  • “Ta” es usada per atas e states nonreal, imajinada, o fantasial
• e me gusta ance la restrinje regardante “si”
  • “Ta” es usada frecuente con la paroleta “si”, ce mostra un depende, ma “si” no nesesa sempre la usa de “ta”. Tota depende de la sensa. Si on parla clar de un cosa imajinal, on usa “ta”, ma si es posable ce la ata o state es real, on no usa “ta”.
• Me NO vole permete la usa de “ia” o “ta” con “ta”. Si esta no es nesesada en esperanto, esta no es nesesada en lfn! 🙂
  • Me acorda. Acel ia es sola un idea, ma me vide ce el no vade bon en LFN. En esperanto, -us es ance sin tempo, ma on aida se par usa la tre partisipios de tempo – no tal cosa esiste en lfn. Simon
• Me crede ancora ce “ta” es bon per la proposa suordinada de voles, esperas, dutas, etc. Ma posable tu pote convinse me ce “ta” no conveni ala.
  • Me va pensa sur esta. Me pote vide ambos opinas, como regarda acel desinia famos ce aspeta como du fases a un momento, e como un vaso a un otra! Simon
  • Me ia atenta scrive un esplica longa a supra. Aora, me va dormi. Si tu oia de me en la oto oras seguente, tu pote dedui ce la sinco de me ia inventa un macina de tempo 🙂
  • bon note. asta doman.

Simon: tu nunca dormi?

• 🙂 Me dormi en la note. Es aora sola 10:30 en la sera! Plu, como tu sabe ce me no es vera sinco persones diferente ci alterna a la teclador? 😎
  • a, bon. me ia pensa ce tu es ses oras pos nos, e donce es pos medianote. (es 7:00 aora asi.) me dormi de 9:30 en la sera a 6:30 en la matina e, per me, pare ce tu no dormi. o es sinco persones diferente. o un viajor tra tempo.

plu pensas:

• “me (ia) vole ce me ta desapare”. nos pote usa “ta” asi car ave un “proposa de si” ascondeda (“… si me ta pote”), no?
  • Si. “Me (ia) vole ce me desapare” difere apena de “me (ia) vole desapare”. La difere es sola un cosa de stilo. Si on ajunta “ta”, la desapare deveni min probable – e la caso la plu comun es cuando el depende de un otra condision nonprobable. Simon
    • esta es ce me ia desira oia! a, no - me malcomprende.
• “me (ia) duta ce el ta fini la corsa” (an si el ta pote) ?
• “me (ia) espera ce tu ta aida me” (si me ta demanda) ?
• me nota un modo simil en esperanto (si me comprende coreta los):
  • Mi estas certa, ke li venus, se li povus. Li ne povas.
    • “He would come if he were able to (but he can’t).” Me es serta de esta.
  • Mi estas certa, ke li venos, se li povos. Eble li povos.
    • “He’ll come if he can (but I don’t know whether he’ll be able to).” Me es serta de esta. “Venos” es lojical futur, ma engles dise “can”. (Ma en la comenta brasetida, me no ia pote dise “can”. Engles es strana.) En lfn, si nos segue me ideas, nos pote dise “El va veni si el pote”, car la futuria de veni sufisi per fa comprende ce “pote” es ance futur. Simon
• nota ce me usa “ta” en la proposa pos “si”, como on usa “-us” en esperanto. tu acorda, o no?
  • Me no desacorda. Ambos verbos indica futures imajinada/nonprobable. Ma en alga casos, on pote comunica sufisinte bon con sola un “ta”: la otra verbo es relativa a acel. En acel casos, pare plu bon si on pone “ta” a la verbo pos “si”, car la otra depende e pote prende se imajinalia de acel verbo. A fini, denova, esta es un cosa de stilo. Tu acorda ce “va” e “ia” es elejable en alga frases? Simon
    • per ce tu demanda esta asi?
    • A la fini de ier, ia pare ce me ia convinse tu ce “va” no es sempre nesesada a un verbo futur. Me xerca confirma ce tu no cambia tu mente. Me ia pone asi la demanda car el es prosima relatada a la omete de “ta” en frases de la spesie ce tu ia mensiona. Simon
    • me nota ce tu ia dise “El va veni si el pote”, sin “va” ante “pote”. me demanda a me si no usa la “va” es sola un forma engles idiomal per verbos modal.
      • No sola per verbos modal: “he will come if time permits”, etc. Me comprende “el va veni si el pote” como “el va veni si el pote fa acel”, do “acel” = “va veni”. La verbo (asi ometeda) pos “pote” es relativa a la verbo futur en la proposa major. Simon
• tu esplicas longa a supra: me demanda a me si los pote es reduida a alga cosa ce un aprendor pote comprende e usa fasil? la usa de “ta” debe es “natural”, debe segue “psico-lojica”. la usa de la modos sujuntiva e dependente es fasil per persones ce oia los de enfantia, ma lfn nesesa ce la aprendor comprende los en adultia!
  • Ance, la usa de la modas sujuntiva e dependente difere multe entre la linguas de la mundo. On no pote simple imita los, car los es varios! Me esplica ia es longa, ma la idea de relativia es multe simple. On pote esplica el simple a esta modo: “Cuando un verbo es suordinada a un otra parola, se tempo es relativa a acel otra parola” + esemplos. Simon
    • bon.

• un difere entre nos ideas: me vide la usa de “ta” en la presente indica ce la nonrealia es ance en la presente, e no en la futur. en otra parolas, “ta” es nunca un forma debil de “va”.
  • “me ta es felis si la sol brilia” (o “si la sol brilia, me ta es felis”) indica ce la posable felisia ta aveni aora si la sol brilia aora, no ce esta felisia va aveni si la sol brilia aora (o en la futur).
    • “Ta” no indica un tempo. En la esemplo, la sol brilia aora, donce la felisia ta esiste ance aora. Si nos cambia la frase a “me ta es felis si la sol ia brilia”, ambos es pasada. La felisia es relativa a la brilia. Simon
    • Esce on pote dise “me ta veni doman si tu ta desira me aida”? Asi, “ta” es futur. Simon
    • On pote ave un state irrealis an si la verbo major es futur. “Pos des anios, me va dise ce me ta es felis si la sol ta brilia.” (Ma no es clar si la felisia imajinada va es presente o pasada.) Simon
• ance, me tende dise “me ta es felis si la sol ta brilia”. la “ta” duple pone ambos la felisia e la brilia en la universa imajinada, ultra tempo, como un desira eternal.
  • Si, me no desacorda. Ma me vide no otra modo per comprende la frase an si on sutrae la “ta” ante “brilia”. El es elejable. Simon
• vera, me tende vide la usa de “ta” sola en un suproposa pos un proposa con “ia” o un otra “ta”.
  • “si la sol ia brilia, me ta es felis.” (futur en la pasada o la contrareal ce tu mensiona.)
    • Tu vole un “ta” en “si la sol ta brilia” a supra. Ma asi tu no vole un “ta”, an cuando la brilia es egal imajinada. Me no comprende. Plu, la futur en la pasada no es un caso de “ta”. Me ia pensa ce me ia convinse ja tu de esta. Simon
      • como on dise “I would have been happy if only the sun would have shined”?
      • Posable “me ta es alora felis si la sol ta brilia alora”. Esta es un problem car tu proibi la usa de “ia” con “ta”. Simon
  • “si la sol ta brilia, me ta es felis.” (tota imajinal e ipotesal)
    • Esta es un bon frase, si. Ma si “ta” es elejable, el no nesesa un de los. Simon

• Me gusta la idea de indica tempos sola cuando nesesada per la sensa. La lingua resta simple como resulta. Si on no es serta cual paroleta de tempo on debe usa, on pote omete, si esta no dana mal la posablia de comprende. Esta pare coere con la desposi jeneral de lfn a tal cosas. “La situa…” Simon
  • my main concern with this (which was discussed at length many years ago) is that it is harder for the learner to learn how to decide whether or not to use optional rules than it is to use a rule consistently despite it not being absolutely necessary. the fact that we didn’t make “ta” a requirement is actually a testimony to how difficult it is to define when it should or shouldn’t be used. because of this, it was decided to define “ta” as similar to the romance use of both conditional and subjunctive, and let the chips fall where they may. since the conditional and subjunctive aren’t even really necessary at all, they can be left out entirely if the learner doesn’t really understand the idea. we are now trying to be more definitive and, as you can see, that ain’t easy.
    • Me acorda ce la tema de “ta” es difisil. Triste, the chips haven’t really fallen anywhere, car la cuantia de parlores no es ancora sufisinte per crea tal modeles de usa. Simon
    • Me vide “va” como un corti de “en la futur”, “ia” como un corti de “en la pasada”, e “ta” como un corti de “en un alternativa imajinada”.
      • me gusta multe esta idea, ma me pensa ce nos debe sujeste ce parlores usa estas “cuasi sempre” per comunica clar. jorj
        • Si. Cuando no cosa en la situa o contesto indica ce on parla de un otra tempo, on suposa natural ce on parla de la presente. Donce si on vole parla de un otra tempo, e esta no es ja clar, on nesesa usa un preverbo. Referes a la futur o pasada pote es subita e nonprevideda, o los pote deveni un parte plu constante de un segue longa de frases. Simon
    • Simil, “asi” es un corti de “en esta loca”, “ala” es un corti de “en acel loca”, etc. Me no vide per ce la preverbos debe ave regulas spesial, como si los (ta) formi un conjuga vera. Los debe es mera averbos, poneda ante la verbo. Simon
    • Posable nos es tro oseseda per trova traduis esata de cada forma ce nos conose en engles e otra linguas. Nos no ave esta osese per la tempos perfeta, per esemplo. La era es regarda “ta” como un parte de la conjuga, cuando el es vera simple un averbo tinjente (“nuancing”). Simon
    • Nota ance ce, cuando on discute la contenida de un nara, on pote usa verbos presente per refere egal a tota tempos, car on ave un punto de vista multe jeneral, como si on es an estra la universa: “En se jovenia Mateo desira es un locomotivor, ma pos dudes anios el labora como instruor. Esta es un simbol de …” Esta difere de la omete de “ia” en la scrive de un nara. Simon

(pardona la leteras forte asi e a supra - me nesesa la aida per recorda ce me crede! 🙂

• Acel aida ance me!
• Per me “ta” es la cosa plu mal de elefen… Me demanda si nos no pote considera ce elefen no ave conjuga e ce on parla sempre en presente ma ce si nesesada on ave “ja” per indica la anterioria e “va” per indica la posterioria (prontia, intende)la cual es como Jorj dise un forma de nonrealia, e cual cuando combinada con “ja” pote espresa la ipotese : “ier me vole compra pan e me vade a la paneria do me trova Jorj ci dise a me ce el ja compra pan. Doman, ante vade compra pan, me demanda a Jorj si el ja o si va compra pan. Si me ja sabe ce Jorj compra pan cada dia, me no va nesesa plu demanda…” Pare a me ce pote vade tal sin “ta” e sin “ia”…
  • nota ce tu usa “ja” en esata la locas do nos usa “ia”.
  • en un varia de lfn plu primitiva, nos usa “ia” per ambos “ia” e “ja”. la sola difere ia es ce un presede la verbo e la otra seguente la verbo. ma alga no gusta el, e la un ia es cambiada a “ja”.
  • per favore, nota ce “ta” no es vera nesesada, e nos conose ce el no es vera nesesada! “ta” ia es introdui car alga parlores de linguas romanica ia desira multe un metodo per indica la sujuntiva e ipotesal. car me es multe jeneros, me ia ajunta el. 🙂 jorj
• Asi vade un idea oposante: “doti” lfn par un sistem de conjuga latina simplida:
  • ariva / permane / parti (per la sustantiva/infinitiva/presente/imperativa)
  • arivava / permaneva / partiva (per la pasada nonperfeta)
  • arivate / permanete / partite (per la pasada perfeta)
  • arivara / permanera / partira (per la futur)
  • arivasi / permanesi/ partisi (per la nonreal) Patric
    • me no comprende per ce tu ta ajunta un sufisa per la nonreal cuando tu no gusta “ta”, o un sufisa per la pasada perfeta cuando tu no gusta “ia… ja”. jorj
    • me no gusta “ta” e “ia/ja” ma me no vole aboli la ipotesal e no la pasada perfeta, oposante, me considera ce los es nesesada e per esta razona me proposa un sufisa per los. Me crede ce la sistem “ia/va/ta” es tro torpe per un testo nonpoesial un poca elaborada o un testo literatural. Clar, esta proposa oposa acel a ante: o on ave un conjuga o on ave zero! La idea de no conjuga es stimulante per un lingua creolin (esce los vera ave no conjuga?), ma me no sabe si es realos… Cisa me es influeda par la linguas romanica, me sabe ce ave otra sistemas como xines… Per esemplo, rusce ave un paroleta (by) en loca de un tempo per la nonreal cual combina se con la tempos pasada, la perfeta simple vade per la futur e la futur nonperfa es fada con la perfeta de la verbo “es” = byt’ : “ia budu govorit” = “me va es parlante” :
• Parla(e dise): govorit’ (nonperfeta) / scazat’ (perfeta)
• ia govoriu = me parla / me es parlante
• ia scaju = me va parla
• ia budu govarit’ = me va es parlante
• ia govoril = me ia parla / me ia es parlante
• ia scazal = me ia parla ja (dise)
• ia govoril by = me ta parla / me ta es parlante
• ia scazal by = me ta parla ja… Patric

tu rena ta veni

Me leje en la gramatica>verbos>comandas la frases “tu renia ta veni” e “ta ce tu renia veni”. Prima, la parola “renia” debe es “rena”. A pos, me vole sabe esce “tu rena ta veni” = “ta ce tu rena veni”? o esce “tu rena ta veni” es un forma vea, cual ia es cambiada a “ta ce tu rena veni”? Me ia leje la arcivo multe longa sur la sinifia e la usa de “ta”, e la conclui es ce “ta” es un averbo cual sinifia “en un alternativa imajinada”. Ma an con esta sinifia, me no vide un comanda o un desira en “tu rena ta veni”. Me comprende: “tu rena veni en un alternativa imajinada” = “me imajina ce tu rena veni”. En la frase “ta ce tu rena veni”, “ta” sinifia “la me desira es”. Donce “ta” ave du sinifias. La disionario dise “ta” = “imaginary future tense marker”, e la gramatica no dise ce “ta” es “a tense marker”, el dise ce “ta” indica un moda nonreal. Ma esta moda nesesa un informa completinte per sabe esce el indica un imajina (me imajina ce), un duta (me duta ce), un desira (me desira ce), o un posible (es posible ce). Sunido

• Tu conclui bon ce “ta” sinifia “en un alternativa imajinada”. “Tu rena ta veni” sinifia “via regno venus” e “via regno venu”. “Ta ce tu rena veni” es un ajunta resente a la lingua, e el sinifia sola “via regno venu”. La difere entre “venus” e “venu” no es tan grande como on imajina: “via regno venu” sinifia “via regno venus, se la mondo estus tia, kian mi deziras” (tu rena ta veni si la mundo ta es como me desira). Esta vade car un situa desirada es un spesie de alternativa imajinada. Nota ce en engles anticin, on pote dise “we would see” (nos ta vide) per espresa la sinifia “let us see” (ta ce nos vide). Simon
  • “Tu rena ta veni” = “via regno venus” ankaù se la mondo estus tial ke mi ne deziras… Esta sinifia ce ta no pote es per ambos casos (ipotesal e desiral) e per esta razon on ave aora “ta ce”… La problem es ce esta “ta ce” es multe fea! (= ancora plu fea ce ta) patric
  • “ta” es la marca de la modo dependente en aitian. Me gusta el, car el rima con “ia” e “va”. “ta” es la fonde de 2 parolas gramatical: “te” cual marca la pasada e “a” cual marca la futuro. Donce “ta” = “te + a”. “te” veni de la parola franses “été” (partisipio de la verbo être) e “a” veni de la preposada franses “à”. On pote nota ce como en engles, como en deutx, e como en la romanicas, en aitian la modo dependente cumula la marca de la futuro e de la pasada. “ta ce” es la contrae de la frase “me ta desira ce” Sunido
  • En portuges, es alga tal: passado imperfeito do subjuntivo + futuro do prétérito (=ipotesal): “se pudesse, eu faria”. Car en LFN no ave sujuntiva, on ta dise: “Si me ia pote, me ta fa”… Ma poplal on dise “si me ia(taia) pote, me ia fa” (Se pudesse, eu fazia)… patric

ta - plu discute

la me comprende de la usas varios de “ta”:

la ipotesal (engles: conditional)

• me va vade cuando tu va vade, me va vade cuando tu vade, me vade cuando tu vade - tota ave prosima la mesma sinifia, e no nesesa “ta” car no vera ipotesal.
  • I will go when you will go (no usada), I will go when you go, I go when you go (nonformal)
  • Mi iros, kiam vi iros; mi iros, kiam vi iros (la mesma); mi iras, kiam vi iras. Simon
• me va vade si tu va vade - en la futur con un grado de sertia.
  • I will go if you will go
  • Mi iros, se vi iros. Simon
• me ta vade si tu ta vade - un relata de du proposas, sin clar indica de la tempo, ma un clar indica de nonrealia.
  • I would go if you would go (no normal)
  • Mi irus, se vi irus. Simon
• me ta vade si tu vade, me ta vade si tu ia vade, me ta vade si tu va vade - la suproposa (lo cual comensa con “si”) determina la tempo de la proposa major.
  • I would go if you go, I would go if you went (strana), I would go if you will go (strana)
  • Mi irus, se vi irus; mi estus irinta, se vi estus irinta (o: mi irus, se vi estus irinta). Un ambigua resta asi – en engles: “I would have gone if you had gone”, o “I would go [now] if you had gone [then]”.

la sujuntiva

• me duta ce el va vade - no problem: la futur es sempre nonserta.
  • I doubt he will go
  • Mi dubas, ke ŝi venos. Simon
• me ia duta ce el ta vade - “ta” es usos asi car lo sujeste ce la “vade” no aveni en la futur, ma es ancora nonserta.
  • I doubt that he would go (strana)
  • Mi dubis, ke ŝi venos. (Me acorda con Sunido ce “va” ta es plu bon ca “ta” asi.) Simon
• me espera ce el va vade - no problem.
  • I doubt that he will go
  • Mi esperas, ke ŝi venos. Simon
• me espera ce el vade - bon.
  • I hope that he goes
  • Mi esperas, ke ŝi venas. Simon
• me espera ce el ta vade - oce, ma alga strana.
  • I hope that he would go (strana)
  • Mi esperas, ke ŝi venus. (Multe strana.) Simon
• me ia espera ce el vade - oce, ma no tota clar.
  • I hoped that he goes (strana)
  • Mi esperis, ke ŝi venas. (I hoped she was coming – la vade aveni a la mesma tempo como la espera.) Simon
• me ia espera ce el ta vade - bon.
  • I hoped that he would go
  • Mi esperis, ke ŝi venos. (Denova, “va” ta es plu bon ca “ta”.)
• me va espera ce el va vade - bon, ma no multe usosa.
  • I will hope that he will go
  • Mi esperos, ke ŝi venos. Simon

Jorj, tu esemplos es interesante, ma esce tu pote ajunta un tradui en engles, e Simon en Esperanto? Me demanda esta afin me deveni serta sur la sinifia de la esemplos, e afin me pote esamina se lojica. Me desira un sistem fasil comprendable. Sunido

Jorj, me acorda sur tu esemplos ipotesal, ma no sur alga esemplos sujuntiva. Sunido

Si en la presente on dise “me espera ce el va vade”, alora en la pasada on dise ance “me ia espera ce el va vade”. Ave no razona per cambia “va” a “ta”. Sunido

• Me acorda. Simon
• me apoia a acorda. ma es un cualia de “espera” ce lo vide a la futur. ma es “me ia duta ce el ta vade” no usos?

Si en la presente on dise “me duta ce el va vade”, alora en la pasada on dise ance “me ia duta ce el va vade”. En LFN no ave lo cual on nomi “concordance des temps”. La idea de futuro en la suproposa resta an cuando la proposa xef es en la pasada. Sunido

• Me acorda denova. (Esta es vera la mesma punto como la presedente.) Simon

• Simon, esce tu acorda con me ce nos no nesesa “ta” en sujuntiva? Sunido
• On no nesesa lo per la sujuntiva pur. Ma on pote “ta” en tal frases per otra razonas: “Nos espera ce vos ta vole visita nos.” “Me espera ce me ta aida en un tal crise.” Simon
• Me no vide la difere con “me espera ce vos va vole visita nos”, e con “me espera ce me va aida en un tal crise”. Sunido
• “Me espera ce me ta aida en un tal crise” implica ce “un tal crise” es ipotesal: si lo aveni, me ta aida. “Va” sujesta ce un tal crise va aveni. Considera la difere simil entre “me espera ce me ta aida si un tal crise [ta/va/Ø] aveni” e “me espera ce me va aida cuando un tal crise [va/Ø] aveni”. La esemplo con “ta vole” refere a la fato ce “me ta vole” es un modo plu cortes de dise “me vole”: un otra usa de “ta”. Simon
• La modo plu cortes es ancora un ipotese. “me ta vole (si tu aseta)”. Tu dise ce “un tal crise” es ipotesal, donce on usa “ta” par causa de la ipotese e no par causa de la sujunta. Sunido
  • Me no desacorda con tu frase du. Me ia introdui esta esemplos car los es ipoteses cual no es sujuntiva. (Ma cisa me malcomprende la parola “sujuntiva”. Lo sinifia cosas diversa en linguas diferente, e lo ave no sinifia clar en lfn.) Simon
  • Me opina ce la sujuntiva no esiste en LFN. En franses lo esiste, per esemplos on dise “je veux que tu viennes” = “me vole ce tu veni”, e “je crains qu’il vienne” = “me teme ce el veni”. En LFN la idea de “sujuntiva” es ja en la verbos “vole” e “teme”, nos no nesesa indica lo en la suproposa. Sunido
  • tu es coreta. lfn no ave la sujuntiva (o la perfeta/nonperfeta, la perfetiva/nonperfetiva, o an la dependente). “ta” ia es introduida per indica la nonrealia de un aveni espresada par un verbo si la parlor/scrivor desira. “ta” es nunca un obliga. personal, me gusta ce la usa es tan libre. jorj
• vera, me ia crede nunca ce “ta” es nesesada per la sujuntiva, car lo es indicada clar par la verbo de la proposa xef. pos cuando nos ia ajunta la idea de usa tempos en la suproposa relativa a la tempo de la proposa xef, nos no an nesesa “ta” per la futur en proposas dependente. orijinal, nos ia pensa de “ta” como un paroleta per indica la nonreal jeneral. posible “ta” es sola nesesada per la dependente en la pasada? simon? jorj
  • Me vide “ta” como “-us” en esperanto. Lo indica no tempo par se mesma, ma sola ajunta un idea de nonrealia a la verbo con cual lo apare. Simon
    • esta esata cual nos ia intende orijinal! la problem es como on deside si la verbo es en la mundo de nonrealia! vera, tota avenis cual no ia aveni vera en la pasada, o es aveninte vera en la presente, es “nonreal”. per esemplo, en “me imajina ce me ta es rica”, la “es rica” es nonreal, e no en la futur. esta es un esemplo de la usa de “ta” per la sujuntiva. ma me ta dise “me imajina ce me es rica”, car la parola “imajina” indica ja la nonrealia. (me ia dise “ma me ta dise…” car la dise es dependente sur la proposa pos “car”, e no ave un realia estra si la proposa deveni real.) on pote imajina miliones de frases simil. jorj
    • Tu frase con “me ta dise…” no depende de la proposa pos “car”: lo depende de un situa ipotesal en cual tu ta presenta la tu prefere. On pote comprende “me ta dise, si cualcun ta demanda a me, …” La fato ce acel situa es vera real e no ipotesal es un truco de cortesia o retorica, ma esta no es un problem. Simon
      • me comprende e acorda. jorj
• (me es comfortosa usa “ta” per la plu casos en cual engles usa “would”. es multe conveninte: ajusta un otra lingua a la tu lingua propre! 🙂 jorj
• Simon e me, nos pensa ce es plu bon ce nos segue la lojica en loca de la lingua engles. “ta” debe es “va”, an en la pasada. No complica la gramatica par la regula de la “concordance des temps”. Sunido
  • E serta “ta” no pote sinifia “was going to”, cual es un de la sinifias de “would” en engles (lo es la forma pasada de “will”). Simon
    • me broma! vos no vide la “🙂”? jorj
    • Me ia vide la surie, ma me ia malcomprende ce tu usa lo per presenta tu razonas vera en un modo divertinte (e no per presenta un razona divertinte…) Ai, la comunica enlinia es difisil! Simon
    • en cualce lingua, pare. ;o)

grasias per tota la vos sujestes e comentas! jorj