12

Yes, you just say komencis paroli with no extra particle. If you search for this in the Tekstaro there are many examples, such as this one from Zamenhof’s translation of Andersen’s fables: Nun unu el la burĝoj komencis paroli pri la terura pesto, kiu furiozis antaŭ kelke da jaroj It’s the same for fini. Here is an example from Gerda Malaperis. Gerda ...


11

You would just put many infinitives one after the other, as you suggested at first. This is grammatically correct and perfectly acceptable. Thus La spektanto planas rifuzi atesti. is completely fine. This is also what I would naturally say. In tekstaro there are plenty of examples of double infinitives (for some reason the link may not work, but search \...


11

Yes, there is no problem with using an infinitive as a subject and I believe it’s not that uncommon. Here is an example from Zamenhof’s translation of the old testament: Kaj krom tio, mia filo, akceptu mian instruon, ke se oni volus verki multajn librojn, ne estus fino, kaj multe legi lacigas la korpon. And another example from his translation of Hamlet ...


10

There isn't any rule about how many infinitives you can have in a row; you can have as many as make sense in the context. A rather contrived example: Mi volas povi iri lerni danci - I want to be able to go learn to dance. The basic principle is that an infinitive, like any verb, can take a complement, which may be another infinitive, which in turn can take a ...


9

In Esperanto you would use "por" to connect the second infinitive: Kion oni devas scii por povi kreskigi terpomojn. This is not a rule about infinitives but more syntax of the verbs.


8

I suppose the short answer is "tradition." Many western languages work this way - where a verb-expression can be like the object of the verb - so it's natural that Esperanto works the same way. Nouns, pronouns, and adjectives are marked for accusative when they're direct objects, but verbs are not. If we want a longer answer, we first need to ask what we ...


7

Here is the definition of accusative, according to Oxford Dictionaries: (in Latin, Greek, German, and some other languages) denoting a case of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives which expresses the object of an action or the goal of motion. So the accusative only applies to nouns, pronouns and adjectives.


6

Absolutely, here is an example from Zamenhof's translation of Marta: Oni devas povoscii porti kaj gardi sian personan dignon, aŭ oni devas rifuzi al si ĉiun pretendon pri ĝi.


5

To quote from Lesson 4 of the EAB's "Elementary,..!" textbook: But if the English texts means "in order to do something", as in Mi iris por saluti lin, meaning "I went (in order) to greet him", or Mi revenis por esti kun vi, meaning "I came back (in order) to be with you", the Esperanto inserts the word por to indicate this intention or purpose (porpose!) ...


5

Sen, por, anstataŭ —i are all very common, and it is easy to invent examples for some other prepositions: Vi faris al mi komplezon per peti lin telefoni. You did me a favour by asking him to ring. Ni diskutis pri aĉeti novan aŭton. We discussed buying a new car. However, Zamenhof did not like this form (excepting only por and anstataŭ). Many verbs ...


5

Li ekparolis Li komencis paroli Of course ekparoli is far better, but an infinitive is fine too.


5

I don’t think it’s very common to use trovi with an infinitive so I think the meaning here is mostly theoretical. There are no hits for this usage in the Tekstaro. I’m not totally convinced that your phrase would have the meaning you suggest. Instead I think it may be more along the lines of mi trovis vin por manĝi (I found you to eat). I suppose it would ...


4

In general I think there isn’t a strict rule about what is a valid order or not. Instead it’s more along the lines that if the phrase is understandable then it is fine. If both the subject and the object can take the accusative then the order is pretty flexible because there is no ambiguity. Otherwise the usual thing to do is to rely on the default subject-...


4

If the purpose of the question is to find a parallel in a national language, consider that the infinitive in Esperanto often corresponds to the -ing form in English: he started speaking. This rule of thumb often works with other verbs. He finished speaking - li finis paroli. He considered speaking - li pripensis paroli The tricky part is to know when you ...


3

La frazo sendube estas malbona pro diversaj kaŭzoj, sed certe povas esti infinitiva subjekto. Tio estis la temo de tiu fadeno en kiu ankaŭ vi respondis. La problemo ne estas la infinitivo... Gravas havi bonan gramatikon. Mi pensas ke la problemo estas semantika. Oni povas diri ke ekzisto gravas, sed la senso de la frazo ne estas ke ekzisto gravas, sed ke ...


3

They're all possible but some are more common than others. Common prepositions used with infinitives are por, sen, and anstataŭ. I've always just ascribed this to tradition. If you want to use a preposition with an infinitive, you can often use ol (antaŭ ol paroli) or a different preposition. (Dankon pro via venado / dankon por veni). Some cases are ...


3

Tiaj esprimoj estas ĝustaj. Ili ne havas, kion manĝi, ili ne havas, per kio hejti la fornon. They do not have anything to eat, they do not have anything to heat the stove with. (Marta) Oni ankaŭ ne havis longan stangon, per kiu fermŝraŭbi el sekura distanco la tubon. Neither did they have a long rod with which to screw the pipe shut from a safe ...


3

The expressions volas librojn legi and volas legi librojn are simple rearrangements of each other. So, your two sentences mean slightly different things; the por version implies that you want to own more books as well as read more books. In general, I believe that you can use the bare infinitive after verbs which imply observation, movement, or the giving ...


2

esti leg(a/i/o)nta is possible in infinitive. See this sentence from the "Ekzercaro de la Fundamento de Esperanto", mainly the part between parenthesis: ... ke tio, kion mi diris, estu vera (aŭ mi volas esti dirinta la veron). It might also come up when you really want to emphasize the time, in sentences like: Sen esti leginta la enhavon, mi povas aserti ...


2

"Por" is sometimes necessary when the infinitive verb following it is an extended description, and not the main point. In your example it is necessary since leaving it out gives the sentence a different meaning. Rearranging makes this clear. Only the first option expresses the same thing as the English sentence you wrote. I want more books to read. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible