I have a few questions regarding participles used as adverbs in Esperanto.
Let us consider the following sentence:
- Having slept, I had breakfast.
Early on, I learned that the "Having slept" part should be translated into Esperanto as "Dorminte":
- Dorminte, mi matenmanĝis.
I also seem to remember reading somewhere in some Esperanto-teacher book, that when the -int-, -ant-, or -ont- participle refers to the subject, it should be an adverb (ending in -nte).
However, now I'm beginning to question that advice, or if I even read it correctly, as I'm having trouble looking finding this rule again (if it ever was one).
So my first questions are: Is this rule necessarily correct? (That is, the rule that -nte should be used when referring to the subject.)
And if not, are there rules for when one should use -nta(j) vs. -nte?
My other concern is about this sentence:
- Wounded, he died.
Until just recently, I would translate this to:
- Vundita, li mortis.
But if -int- participles end in -inte when referring to the subject, wouldn't it make sense for -it- participles to use -ite instead of -ita?
Using https://tekstaro.com/ , I found examples of each in "Dua Libro de l’ lingvo Internacia" (Zamenhof, 1888):
- Batate de la mastro, li ploris kaj ĵuris, ke li terure venĝos.
- Punata antaŭ la rompita poto, la kato eble komprenos la kaŭzon de l’ punado.
I admit, both of these usages ("batate" and "punata") confuse me.
So my remaining questions are: Is there a difference between the two? (That is, between -ata and -ate.) If so what it? And if not, are the endings interchangeable in these cases?
And which of these is better?
- Vundita, li mortis.
- Vundite, li mortis.
Or are they both equally good to use?