Kompleta
Gramatiko detaloza
di la
linguo internaciona Ido
|
|
||||||||
| Artiklo. | Article |
| 5. — L'artiklo definita (1) esas la por la du nombri; do lu esas nevariebla : la domo (singularo), la domi (pluralo). | 5. The definite article1 is la for the two numbers; so it is invariable; la domo [the house] (singular), la domi [the houses] (plural). |
| Kande nul altra vorto indikas pluralo, sive per sua formo (finalo -i), sive per sua senco (nombro-nomo or nedefinita pronomo), on uzas le; nam altre on ne savas (per la) kad parolesas pri un individuo o pri pluri. Ex. : le Gracchus, le Cato (Kato); le x, le y, le z; la cifri di ca konto esas tanta male formacita, ke le 3 e le 5 esas konfundebla a le 8 (2). | When no other word indicates a plural, whether by its own form (final -i), or whether by its own sense (number-noun or indefinite pronoun), use le; otherwise, it is not known (by la) if one individual or several are being spoken about. Example: le Gracchus, le Cato (Cat); le x, le y, le z; la cifri di ca konto esas tanta male formacita, ke le 3 e le 5 esas konfundebla a le 8 [the digits of this account are so badly formed that the threes and the fives are confusable with the eights]2. |
| 6. — On darfas elizionar la a final dil artiklo, remplasigante lu per apostrofo, tam egale avan konsonanto kam avan vokalo : la charmo di la infanto o di l'infanto; la plumi di la ucelo o di l'ucelo. | 6. You may elide the final a of the article, replacing it with an apostrophe, as equally before a consonant as before a vowel: la charmo di la infanto o di l'infanto [the charm of the young child]; la plumi di la ucelo o di l'ucelo [the feathers of the bird]. |
| Ma on atencez ne elizionar la artiklo, se ol destruktas la aspiro di la litero h. Do ne uzez l'homo, l'hosti, ma la homo, la hosti. | But pay attention to not eliding the article if it destroys the aspiration of the letter h. So do not use l'homo, l'hosti, but la homo, la hosti [the man, the host]. |
| Atencez anke evitar la miskompreno posibla. Do ne uzez : la duro di l'afero, nam aude on povus komprenar : la duro di la fero. Dicez do : la duro di la afero. | Also pay attention to avoid the possible misunderstanding. So do not use la duro di l'afero [the length of the affair], for audibly you could understand la duro di la fero [the durability of the iron]. Therefore say la duro di la afero. |
| Cetere l'eliziono en la artiklo esas darfo, nule obligo. | Certainly the elision in the article is permitted, never obligatory. |
| On darfas uzar la formo a l', da l', de l', di l' e la kontraktaji al, dal, del, dil, vice a la, da la, de la, di la, sempre reguloza, do senhezite uzebla (3). | You may use the form a l', da l', de l', di l' and the contractions al, dal, del, dil, as opposed to a la, da la, de la, di la; all are regular, so usable without hesitation3. |
| 7. — On uzas l'artiklo definita en la du sequanta kazi : | Use the definite article in the two following cases: |
| 1e Kande la substantivo (singulara o plurala) indikas la tota speco, od omna individui di la speco : la leono ne esas tam kruela kam la tigro; la uceli flugas en la aero, quale la fishi natas en l'aquo. | 1) when the substantive (singular or plural) indicates the whole type, or all individuals of the type: la leono ne esas tam kruela kam la tigro [the lion is not as cruel as the tiger], la uceli flugas en la aero, quale la fishi natas en l'aquo [birds fly in the air like fish swim in the water]; |
| 2e Kande ol indikas un o plura individui determinita di la speco : la libri dil profesoro (la komplemento : dil profesoro determinas libri); querez la mediko (la mediko kustamata, o qua ja venis; mediko signifikus : ula od irga mediko). | 2) when it indicates one or several determinate individuals of the type: la libri dil profesoro [the professor's books] (the complement, dil profesoro determines libri); querez la mediko [get the doctor] (the accustomed doctor, or which already came; mediko could indicate a semi-definite or any doctor at all). |
| Ecepte ta du kazi, on devas ne uzar l'artiklo, e mem esas konsilata omisar olu, kande la substantivo havas senco generala ne determinata, exemple en la proverbi : Kontenteso valoras plu multe kam richeso; povreso ne esas vicio. | Except for those two cases, you should not use the article, and it is even advised to omit it when the substantive has a generally indeterminate sense, for example in the proverb: Kontenteso valoras plu multe kam richeso; povreso ne esas vicio [Satisfaction is worth much more than richness; poverty is not a vice]. |
| Konseque ico, on nultempe bezonas uzar l'artiklo kun la nomi di abstraktita enti, qualesi, vertui, e. c., nam ta koncepti di speci, e ne korespondas ad individua objekti : fido, espero, karitato, kurajo, energio, esprito, e. c. (On remarkis ke en l'anciena Franca, tala vorti esis uzata sen artiklo). Same pri la nomi di cienci, qui esas quaze propra nomi : filologio, geometrio, fiziko, e. c. Ma segun la regulo memorigita supere, ta nomi devas prenar l'artiklo, se li indikas un apara kozo inter plura kozi : la espero di Petro (Petrus), la kurajo di Alexandro (Alexander), la filozofio di Epikuro (Epikurus), la esprito di Voltaire, e. c. Se on sequos ta regulo tre logikal, on sparos multa artikli, ed on igos la diskurso plu frapanta e plu "nervosa" (4). | Following this, you never need to use the article with the names of abstract entities, qualities, virtues, etc., for those concepts of type, and do not correspond to individual objects: fido, espero, karitato, kurajo, energio, esprito, e. c. [trust, hope, charity, courage, energy, wit, etc.] (We notice that in old French, such words were used without articles). The same concerning the names of sciences, which are quasi proper names: filologio, geometrio, fiziko, e. c. [philology, geometry, physics, etc.]. But according to the above remembered rule, those names should take the article, if they indicate one apparent thing within multiple things: la espero di Petro [the hope of Petrus], la kurajo di Alexandro [the courage of Alexander], la filozofio di Epikuro [the philosophy of Epikurus], la esprito di Voltaire [the wit of Voltaire], e. c. [etc.]. If you will follow this rule very logically, you will conserve many articles, and you will make the discussion more striking and livelier4. |
| On anke ne uzas l'artiklo definita kun la propra nomi omnaspeca (mem di fluvii, monti, e. c.) nek kun la nomi komuna qui esas reale propra nomi, quale ti di la astri, sezoni, monati, dii. | We also don't use the definite article with all types of proper nouns (even of rivers, mountains, etc.), and never with common names that really are proper nouns, like those of stars, seasons, months, and days. |
| Kande la propra nomi esas preirata da titulo, on ne uzas l'artiklo : rejo Henrikus IVa, Papo Pius Xa. Ma on uzas lu, kande la propra nomo esas nur apoziciono a nomo komuna : la genioza poeto Dante, ed anke se la propra nomo akompanesas (preirata o sequanta) da ula adjektivo : la bela Helena, Alexander la Granda. | When the proper nouns are preceded by a title, we don't use the article: rejo Henrikus IVa, Papo Pius Xa [King Henry IV, Pope Pius X]. But we use it when the proper noun is only an apposition to a common noun: la genioza poeto Dante [the genius poet Dante], and also if the proper noun accompanies (preceding or following) some adjective: la bela Helena, Alexander la Granda [the beautiful Helen, Alexander the Great]. |
| Rezume la artiklo definita uzesas nur kun substantivo expresata o tacata, tale ke en ica lasta kazo lu semblas remplasar ta substantivo : Yen rozi; prenez la maxim bela = la maxim bela rozo — prenez le maxim bela = la maxim bela rozi. | To sum up, the definite article is used only with expressed or implied substantives, such that in this last case it seems to replace that substantive: Yen rozi; prenez la maxim bela = la maxim bela rozo [Behold roses, take the most beautiful = the most beautiful rose] — prenez le maxim bela = la maxim bela rozi [take the most beautiful = the most beautiful roses]. |
| On ne pensez ke "la" esas sempre necesa avan maxim; nam ol esas nedependanta de ca adverbo, quale on quik vidos. Advere on dicas : ta homi sentas su la maxim felica, kande… Konseque on devas nultempe repetar la dop substantivo : la homi maxim felica (e ne : la homi la maxim felica). Same on devas ne uzar la avan maxim, sequanta da adverbo : venez maxim frue (e ne : la maxim frue). Fine on devas uzar la kun la posedal pronomi nur kande to esas postulata dal senco (videz 33 [en Posedal adjektivi e pronomi]). | Don't think that la is always necessary before maxim for it is independent of this adverb, as we soon will see. Indeed we say ta homi sentas su la maxim felica, kande… [those people feel themselves the happiest when…]. Consequently we should never repeat la after a substantive: la homi maxim felica [the people most happy] (and not la homi la maxim felica [the people the most happy]). In the same way we should not use la before maxim, after an adverb: venez maxim frue [come earliest] (and not la maxim frue [the earliest]). Finally we should use la with the possessive pronouns only when that is demanded by the sense (see 33 in Possessive Adjectives and Pronouns). |
| 8. — L'artiklo nedefinita (F. un, A. a, I. un, uno, una) ne existas en Ido. La senco nedefinita indikesas dal fakto, ke l'artiklo la ne preiras la substantivo. Kande on volas insistar pri la nedetermineso, on uzas ula, e por nedetermineso kompleta, irga. Ex. : querez ula mediko, mem irga mediko en la urbo, ma ne retrovenez sen mediko, nam sola ni ne salvos l'infanto. | 8. The indefinite article does not exist in Ido. The indefinite sense is indicative of the fact that the article la does not precede the substantive. When we want to insist on the indeterminate, we use ula [some], and for a completely indeterminate, irga [any]. Example: querez ula mediko [fetch some doctor], mem irga mediko en la urbo [fetch any doctor in town], ma ne retrovenez sen mediko [but don't return without a doctor], nam sola ni ne salvos l'infanto [for alone we will not save the young child]. |
| Kande on volas precize indikar la nombro 1, on uzas un. Ex. : Un franko suficos. | When we want to precisely indicate the number 1, we use un. Example: Un franko suficos [One franc will suffice]. |
| 9. — Artiklo partitiva ne existas en Ido : donez a me pano = donez a me la kozo nomizita pano. Se on volas indikar parto o quanto nedeterminita, on uzas la prepoziciono de : donez a me de vua pano, de vua pomi (parto de vua pano, de vua pomi). Se on dicus : vua pano, vua pomi, la senco esus : vua tota pano, vua omna pomi. | 9. A partative article does not exist in Ido: donez a me pano = donez a me la kozo nomizita pano [give me bread = give me the thing named bread]. If we want to indicate an indeterminate part or quantity, we use the preposition de: donez a me de vua pano, de vua pomi [give to me of/from your bread] (part of your bread, of your apple). If we should say vua pano, vua pomi, the sense is: all of your bread, all of your apple. |
| Same on uzas de kun pronomo (por ta ideo partitiva) : Yen kremo, prenez de olu (poke o multe? pri co on ne precizigas; la quanto restas tote nedeterminita). Ma on povus precizigar, se on volas : prenez kelke, multe de olu. | Similarly, we use de with a pronoun (for that partative idea): Yen kremo, prenez de olu [Here's cream, take from it] (little or much? About this we are not precise; the quantity rests totally indeterminate). But we could be precise, if we say prenez kelke, multe de olu [take some, much of it]. |
| 1. Pro kustumo generala, ni duras uzar en ica gramatiko l'adjektivi-participa definita , nedefinita , pri l'artikli ed ula pronomi, quankam certe plu justa epiteto esas dezirinda. | 1. Because of general custom, we continue to use in this grammar the "definite/indefinite" participle-adjectives for the articles and some pronouns, although certainly a more correct epithet is desirable. |
| 2. L'exempli kun le, tale kam mult altri analoga quin on povus donar, montras per su, ke tro granda simpleso gramatikala povas meritar forjeto. Nam, exemple, l'unikeso dil artiklo definita en Esperanto impedas tradukar la supera frazi, tamen ne desfacila e tre ordinara. Ma vere, kad esas laudinda e quon valoras gramatikal simpleso sakrifikanta, od alteranta l'expresado dil pensi? Cetere uli mondolinguana kelke blinde alegas la facileso e simpleso gramatikala. Preske sempre li oblivias, ke la facileso por lerno ne koincidas necese kun la facileso por apliko. Mem eventas, ke l'unesma ofras reale nur pura trompilo, se ol nocas o jenas la duesma. Kun la duimo di sua reguli e vorti Espo e Ido certe esus plu facile lernebla. Ma kad oli esus pro ico plu bona? On lernas helpo-linguo dum kelka hori, dum kelka dii, ma on aplikas lu dum yari. Do questionesas : quo meritas prefero? lerno kelkete plu kurta, ma aplikado entravata e defektoza; o studio kelkete plu longa, ma aplikado senmanka e skopokonforma? En l'unesma kazo, un artiklo definita suficas; en la duesma kazo, certe du artikli esas necesa. | 2. The examples with le, compared with many similar others which we could give, show by themselves that too much grammatical simplicity can deserve to be thrown away. Because, for example, the uniqueness of the definite article in Esperanto impedes translating the above sentences, yet they are not hard and are very ordinary. But really, is sacrificing grammatical simplicity laudable, or altering the expression of the thought? Certainly those world-languages somewhat blindly allege the ease and grammatical simplicity. Almost all of them forget that ease of learning does not necessarily coincide with ease of application. It even happens that the first really offers only pure deception, if it harms or hinders the second. With the [duimo=?dualism?] of their own rules and words Espo and Ido certainly would be more easily learnable. But would they be better because of this? We learn a help-language for some hours, for some days, but we apply it for some years. So there is a question: which merits preference; learning a little shorter, but application fettered and defective; or studying a little longer, but application without want and conforming to purpose? In the first case, one definite article suffices; in the second case, certainly two articles are necessary. |
| 3. Dec. 588 : On admisas l'eliziono di l'artiklo avan konsonanto dop la vorti da, de, di. Ex. : da l'regulo, de l'regulo, di l'regulo. | 3. Dec. 588: We admit the elision of the article before a consonant after the words da, de, di [by (agent), from (origin), of (possession)]. Examples: da l'regulo, de l'regulo, di l'regulo [by the rule, from the rule, of the rule]. |
| Dec. 713 : On adoptas la formi : dal regulo e da l'regulo, kun o sen apostrofo, pos la tri prepozicioni da, de, di. | Dec. 713: We adopt the forms: dal regulo and da l'regulo [by the rule], with or without an apostrophe, after the three prepositions da, de, di. |
| Dec. 949 : On admisas al (un vorto) kom abreviuro di a la, apud l'abreviuro a l' ja existanta. Pro analogeso a dal, del, dil ja admisita. | Dec. 949: We admit al (one word) as an abbreviation of a la [to the], beside the already existent abbreviation a l', due to the similarity to the already admitted dal, del, dil. |
| 4. Ica lasta alineo esas prenita ek Progreso, I, 491. | 4. This first line in the last paragraph is taken out of Progresso, I, 491. |
|
|
| Ica pagino modifikesis ye 28-ma januaro 1999. | This page was last modified on January 28, 1999. |