INTERLNG Archives

Discussiones in Interlingua

INTERLNG@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ruud Harmsen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussiones in Interlingua <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:10:39 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
13:50 17-2-2014, Paul Gideon Dann:
>"Durante que Johannes esseva ambulante a casa, ille incontrava
>un moffetta nigre e blanc."
>
>Un action continuante es interrumpite per un occurrentia in un
>momento, dunque io selige
>le passate in le aspecto imperfecte pro le action continuante, e
>le passate simple pro le
>action que interrumpe le action.

Perque es il necesse indicar illo, con formas del verbo? Mesmo
sin formas differente, le signification e situation ya ja es
clar, per le uso de 'durante' e le comma.

Le linguas fonte face lo de manieras differente:
it, es, pt: imperfecto, perfecto simple
fr: promenais, il a vu (perfecto composite)
en: walking, noticed

Ergo, il non ha un methodo commun pro interlingua, e perque tal
methodo non es necesse, interlingua non lo habe. Il es un lingua
simplice, elegante, effective, practic e empleabile.

 >> Proque le moffetta time necun animal, ille ha ignorate Johannes.
> > Because the skunk fears no animal, he ignored John.
> > Perque non: Quia le moffetta time necun animal, illo ignora
> Johannes?

Ambes son correcte, in mi opinion.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ressources sur interlingua: rudhar.com/lingtics/intrlnga.htm


--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2