Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!news.abs.net!news.scn.org!scn.org!lilandbr
From: lilandbr@scn.org (Leland Bryant Ross)
Subject: Re: Use of futurum in Esperanto
Message-ID: <DyKu7t.Dq4@scn.org>
Sender: news@scn.org
Reply-To: lilandbr@scn.org (Leland Bryant Ross)
Organization: Seattle Community Network
References: <324BC9AD.7E8C@pobox.org.sg> <19960906104751.baaa005GL@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:11:52 GMT
Lines: 45


<helene@pobox.org.sg> (Helene Thygesen) says:

>Colin Fine wrote:
>
[re: Esperanto future tense]
>
[It] >> is a feature of the language which seems obvious to many Europeans
>> (especially those that have studied Latin) but is not only not clear-cut
>> in many languages, but can actually be puzzling to speakers of those
>> that do not have distinct forms.
>
I missed the previous instalments of this thread, so I'm not sure whether 
Colin Fine was saying that the distinction between the present and the 
future is "puzzling" to speakers of languages lacking clear-cut future 
tense forms, or whether he means that *remembering to use* distinct forms 
doesn't come as "easily" or "naturally" to them as to speakers whose 
native languages have such forms (obligatory or not).  I highly doubt the 
former, but would readily concede the latter.

But it seems to me that most discussion *in English* of Esperanto grammar 
(and assessment of its "Latinateness" or "Eurocloniness") underestimates 
(or completely ignores) the Russian influence on Esperanto at a deep 
level.  And Russian verbs are particularly complex and unLatinlike 
(simultaneously!) precisely here in the future, where the Russian 
*imperfective* verb forms its future with the auxiliary copula's 
(formally present) future + infinitive, while the *perfective* verb 
(which has no actual present tense) forms its future (like the copula) 
with the conjugational endings that are *present* when used with 
*imperfectives*.  Russian was Zamenhof's first language, and it seems to 
me that as an Esperantist becomes ever more thoroughly naturalized in the 
Lingvo Internacia, she imbibes and integrates ever increasing amounts of 
substratal Russian grammar, syntax, and semantics.

Helene wrote:
>
>What *is* a little trigy ... [is Esperanto compound verbs]
		    ^^^^^
Tricky?  Triggy?  It can *ja* be *tricky* (and, as Helene says, unnecessary),
but I don't know enough math to judge its trigginess.
--
Liland Brajant ROS'    		"Intla yajuanti quinitzquise cohuame o intla
P O Box 30091      		quiise se pajyo, ax quinchihuilis tleno."
Seattle, WA 98103 Usono		
Tel. (206) 633-2434  		(Aj aj aj!  Liland krokodiledas!)
