Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:59:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290859.DAA16948@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Re: What's going on here? To: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <0EIS0053UN8JUJ@newcastle.edu.au> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2209 Lines: 46 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >> There was a headline on an editorial in La Nacion that asked (if I > >> remember right) "?Somos o estamos indeciso?". The distinction between > the > >> two possibilities (whether the public was indecisive or merely undecided > >> on whatever issue it was) were obviously important enough for some editor > >> to devote space to it. > > > >OK, well what I think is going on there (and again, Jorge will know more > >about this than I do) is that "estamos" expresses a condition, and > >consequently can be used here to express a tendency. > > The tendency one is "somos". "Estamos indecisos" would be > "we are undecided", and "somos indecisos" would be "we are > undecisive". "Estar" is the temporary condition, "ser" is the > immanent one. > > I once read that the ser/estar distinction reflected the tendency > of Spaniards to let their spirit ponder on those transcendental > issues of existence, leaving for the industrious Anglosaxons the > more practical distinctions of doing and making. :) Right. Is that a general trait of ser/estar? If so, I really wish my Spanish teacher had taught me that. It would have saved a lot of confusion. And as far as states of being goes, there's a really significant difference metaphysically going on there. Cool. u'aro'e :) > > > The > >point is that I don't think that the "ser/estar" distinction contributes > >anything significant to the English language-web, because its functions > >are handled elsewhere - as your translation of the concepts > >of "somos/estamos" into "indecisive/merely undecided" shows. Conversely, > >"to do/to make" might not contribute anything significant to the Spanish > >web, because Spanish speakers make this distinction in other ways that are > >familiar to them as well. > > Of course, English makes do perfectly well with its single "to be", and > Spanish with its "hacer". And each of them can make both distinctions > in its own way. And so can Lojban and any other language, or it wouldn't > be a language. Exactly. :) No reason we all need the same divisions in our own webs. Variety is the spice of life. Geoff