Why is it "He plays..." and not "he is playing.. "?

[homeskillet359]

Is there really a difference or is Duo being dumb?

[Grarls]

Your answer will have been rejected because you put “A dog” instead of “THE dog”.

Duolingo is not very good at pointing out exactly what it did not like. I made the same sort of error so often that it was one of the reasons I deleted my original account.

[homeskillet359]

Yeah I see now. Thats something that could be glossed over easily in English, "with the dog" and "with a dog" so I probably wasn't thinking about it.

[Ady]

But you could definitely stick to

• 'ludas' for 'plays' <-- present perfect tense

• 'ludantas' (or 'estas ludanta') for 'is playing'. <--- present continuous tense

(Ditto for all other verbs of course.)

Some people think Esperanto can't handle those two tenses, or don't care to distinguish between them (often using, for example, 'ludas' for 'is playing'), but that's kind of a waste.

[jzsuzsi]

But you could definitely stick to

• 'ludas' for 'plays' <-- present perfect tense

• 'ludantas' (or 'estas ludanta') for 'is playing'. <--- present continuous tense

(Ditto for all other verbs of course.)

Some people think Esperanto can't handle those two tenses, or don't care to distinguish between them (often using, for example, 'ludas' for 'is playing'), but that's kind of a waste.

Wait, what? No.

I mean, you can use "estas ludanta", and maybe Duolingo would accept it... but I would recommend 'ludas' for 'plays' and also 'ludas' for 'is playing'.

I am not an Esperanto expert, but Salivanto usually recommended the same.
Plus in my native language we also use the same verb form for "plays" and "is playing" and no one ever gets confused by it.
It is so much simpler to have 1 verb form instead of 2.

[jzsuzsi]

A nice link: http://esperantoblog.com/simple-present ... esperanto/

[gmads]

It is so much simpler to have 1 verb form instead of 2.

On the other hand, having more verb forms allows for a richer and more expressive language —and harder to learn.

[Ady]

But you could definitely stick to

• 'ludas' for 'plays' <-- present perfect tense

• 'ludantas' (or 'estas ludanta') for 'is playing'. <--- present continuous tense

(Ditto for all other verbs of course.)

Some people think Esperanto can't handle those two tenses, or don't care to distinguish between them (often using, for example, 'ludas' for 'is playing'), but that's kind of a waste.

Wait, what? No.

I mean, you can use "estas ludanta", and maybe Duolingo would accept it... but I would recommend 'ludas' for 'plays' and also 'ludas' for 'is playing'.

I am not an Esperanto expert, but Salivanto usually recommended the same.
Plus in my native language we also use the same verb form for "plays" and "is playing" and no one ever gets confused by it.
It is so much simpler to have 1 verb form instead of 2.

By the same logic, though, you could get rid of all verb conjugations and just use the infinitive everywhere. We just have slightly different takes on where is the best place on the sliding scale of how many verb tenses to use.

And note I'm saying 'how many verb tenses to use' here, and not 'how many verb tenses there should be'. So more to the point here: Why, in your opinion, does 'ludantas' (and 'estas ludanta') exist at all if not to be used?

[jzsuzsi]

If it were not Esperanto, but a natural language, I would say look at the what the native speakers are using. But since it is Esperanto, I would say look at what the experienced, long-time Esperanto speakers are using.

If we would both go to an Esperanto meeting, I would use " li ludas" , you would use "li estas ludanta". I think both of us would be understood. Which one of us would get funny looks for speaking in an unnatural way, that's up to them.

Why, in your opinion, does 'ludantas' (and 'estas ludanta') exist at all if not to be used?

When a tool exist, you still have a choice between using it the right amount or using it too much.

"ludanta" has other uses too, like an adjective (la ludanta knabo, the playing boy)

---

There is a great Facebook group, I copy some parts here

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4645961 ... ?q=ludanta

Alba Arendsen

The literal translation of "she is playing" would be "ŝi estas ludanta", but that is a very unusual phrase in Esperanto, only used when you need to stress that she's playing /right now/.

Similarly, if you want to specifically express that she does it all the time, you would say "she plays" in English, same as "ŝi ludas" in Esperanto.
When none of those concepts need to be specifically expressed, English defaults to the first form, while Esperanto defaults to the second. There's no logic to that, it's just the way it is.

In fact, English is really weird, when compared to other languages. There's no other language that defaults to "to be X-ing" like English does. Elle joue, zij speelt, sie spielt, hun leker, ella juega, она играет (ana igrayet), just to show a few that I know... As you learn, you're going to run into many other of these

English idiosyncrasies that you are totally used to but that are just weird once you start comparing English to any other language.

Lee Miller

"Ŝi estas ludanta" doesn't necessarily emphasize that "she's playing right now", but indicates the state she is in, as opposed to what she's doing.
For example, "Mi estas tre malrapide leganta la libron 'La Granda Kaldrono', ĉar mi legas nur kelkajn paĝojn ĉiutage."
And we very rarely need or want to talk about someone's state rather than their action.

"Ŝi ludas" also doesn't indicate that "she does it all the time. "Ŝi ludas la pianon nun, sed efektive preskaŭ neniam tuŝas la instrumenton." "Foje ŝi ludas la pianon."

The essential grammar is that "ŝi ludas" = she plays, she is playing. Any other factors depend on context and accessory words like adverbs and other descriptors.

Fully agree with your second two paragraphs, though.

[Lee Miller is a real expert in Esperanto ]

[Ady]

Really appreciate the transcription from Facebook since I'm not on it (and Facebook blocks their content for outsiders).

I like the way Alba puts it, and what might help shed some light on the situation for me is that I am not trying to default to X-ing, as in English. In fact in instances when people do that in English I don't like it and find it needlessly muddying and frankly lazy (see example below).

• In English I try to use 'X-ing' if and only if the action or state is in the current moment. It just takes a bit of effort to say, say, "I'll be going to the store soon." or "I am about to go to the store." rather than "I am going to the store." (when that isn't true) or "I am going to the store soon." (which doesn't even make sense).

• In Esperanto, I also try to use 'X-antas' (or estas 'X-anta') if and only if the action or state is in the current moment (so again, you don't have to worry that I am trying to make that the default).

• In Esperanto similarly, though, I try to use 'X-as' if and only if the action or state is not in the current moment (or if that is unknown). It just takes a bit of effort to use 'antas' when it applies.

Being precise like that is not as easy in, say, French as it is in English and Esperanto, since "Je suis en train de manger." is a mouthful, and I'm used to not having that precision in French, but I choose to use the particular strength and precision of English and Esperanto here. Not doing so, to me, would be akin to choosing not to use the accusative '-n', in that some people may not find it necessary but I like the clarity it gives (or so the argument goes. I'm actually not convinced except for its use for motion and time, but I'm happy to go with the flow and just cxiam uzi gxin). As a bonus, it's minimal effort compared to la akusativo, and based on the SVO default and the fact that we talk about things in the present a lot, I'd say it gives even more bang for your buck.