Timeline for When should "por" be used before an infinitive (i-verbo)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 20, 2016 at 14:27 | vote | accept | Chris McDowell | ||
| Sep 23, 2016 at 11:47 | comment | added | Tomaso Alexander | Thanks for making the edit. I'm still not convinced that it is "easy to show" that the word "must" is wrong in the EAB text. I think there may be something else going on in the examples provided by Andrew Woods | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 7:55 | comment | added | conor | @tomaso-alexander and Andrew Woods: edited in response to your comments, many thanks! | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 7:54 | history | edited | conor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added material from comments.
|
| Sep 23, 2016 at 4:05 | comment | added | Andrew Woods | There are many situations where "to" could be replaced with "in order to", but por can be omitted: Kiu rabi eliras, ofte nuda revenas. He who goes out in order to rob, will often return naked. Ŝi tuj kuris bati ŝin. Straight away she ran over in order to hit her. ...veninta el Kievo, kien li iris preĝi... ...coming from Kiev, where he had gone in order to pray... | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:22 | comment | added | Tomaso Alexander | The "in order to" test is a good rule of thumb, but it is not definitive. For example, in mi havas multon por fari the por is needed, but it fails the "in order to" test. In some cases, por is possible but not required. I'm curious about Andrew Woods's comment. What is an example where it passes the "in order to" test, but where "por" is not needed? | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 6:22 | comment | added | conor | You could edit my answer with a counter example. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 2:52 | comment | added | Andrew Woods | I am reluctant to downvote as you are quoting in good faith from a textbook, but the "must" is wrong and it is easy to show that it is wrong. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 2:39 | comment | added | Clayton Ramsey | Generally, for purpose of an object without "por," you can use "inda" or "enda," e.g. "Estas multo videnda." (There is much to see). | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 22:18 | comment | added | conor | Thanks - I did not know that; do you want to edit my answer so as to keep all the information together? | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 22:14 | comment | added | kristan | This is the rule in general. However, the bare infinitive is very commonly used after "iri", such that "iri" before an infinite is generally understood as "to go (in order) to", and the "por" seldom alters the meaning. See PMEG, under I-verbo kiel por-komplemento aŭ al-komplemento. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 18:25 | history | edited | conor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2016 at 17:47 | history | answered | conor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |