4

I found in this post

"Sen rigardi": Which preposition+infinitive combos are possible?

that the form sen + infinitive is possible, but it seems that it is not recommended by Zamenhof. Is that form more common nowadays?

I have not found any examples for sen followed by a clause. Just as antaŭ ol is to antaŭ + infinitive, what is the corresponding form for sen + infinitive? And for anstataŭ + infinitive? Conversely, what would be the form followed by infinitive for post kiam?

3

what is the corresponding form for sen + infinitive?

Tekstaro yields sen ke ĝi ricevu ian privilegionZ and many more later examples. While sen + -i raises some eyebrows (not mine), sen ke + -u/as/is/os/us is generally accepted. It is often used with -u.

And for anstataŭ + infinitive?

Again from Tekstaro, anstataŭ ke ĉiu lernas diversajn lingvojnZ, from Esenco kaj Estonteco de la Ideo de Lingvo Internacia. You get a hit from Vojaĝo al Kazohinio too. However, anstataŭ ke does not seem to be widely used. Surprisingly, you get three Tekstaro hits (none of them from Z) for anstataŭ ol + -i, which I would never use (I’m for anstataŭ + -i, without ol)

Conversely, what would be the form followed by infinitive for post kiam?

In Artikoloj el Monato you find post produkti elektron per vaporturbinoj, and in La Ondo de Esperanto: post celebri ĉe UK dujaran enkondukan periodon, so post + -i is used in modern newsmagazines. I would prefer post produktado de elektro, post celebro ĉe UK, and so on. It is worth noting that in Tekstaro you get some hits (all from Russia) for post ol instead of post kiam, which is something I sometimes find myself saying.

To resume:

  • sen + infinitive is debated, sen ke + clause is OK.
  • anstataŭ (ol?) + infintive is OK, anstataŭ ke + clause is OK but rare.
  • antaŭ (ol) + infinitive is probably OK, antaŭ ol + clause is OK.
  • post + infinitive is maybe OK, post kiam/(ol?) + clause is OK.

-inte and -onte are good alternatives for post/antaŭ + -i, as post/antaŭ + -ado often are.

3

Preposition plus infinitive is copied from numerous national languages but (with the exception of por/anstataŭ) grammatically incorrect. Some alternatives:

  • sen - ne rigardante, sen rigardo, sen kurado
  • post - rigardinte
  • antaŭ - rigardonte, antaŭ ol rigardi, antaŭ rigardo, antaŭ la skribado

Especially the -ado form seems adequate.

Whether nowadays such grammar rules are more relaxed is hard to tell. One hears sen-forms ("sen scii") sufficient often, and it just might have become time to accept preposition + infinitive. For now let's keep to official grammatics.


I found in Reta-Vortaro an opposite stand point:

Rim.: Kvankam la uzado de sen antaŭ infinitivo estas neofta, ĝi estas tute korekta, ĉar logika kaj utila. La kutima dirmaniero ne ...-ante ne estas ĝuste samsenca, ĉar ĝi ne esprimas la neatenditecon aŭ la esceptecon de la foresto. Ekz.: ne parolante (ĉar mia temo ne estas) pri la versarto, mi do ne analizos la ritmon; sen paroli (eĉ se oni ne volas paroli) pri la versarto, la tie esprimita ideo estas admirinda.

2
  • I found 9 hits in Tekstaro for "sen diri". Why is this grammatically incorrect? PMEG doesn't deprecate this usage, and it gives the example sentence "Ŝi foriris sen diri eĉ unu vorton.". I even noticed that PMEG sometimes puts an infinitive after "sed" in the text explaining Esperanto grammar. Feb 20 '18 at 14:02
  • 1
    I have found similar in ReVo, see extended answer. Though I learned to avoid sen, and indeed considering the rigid grammatical categories in E-o I still cannot be convinced otherwise. There is a small essay, booklet on this topic.
    – Joop Eggen
    Feb 20 '18 at 15:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.