I find the English here a bit clunky. I'm inclined to want to try saying: Tomorrow (at this time?), the test'll be done.
They mean different things though.
"The test will be done tomorrow." means that the doing of the test occurs during tomorrow.
"The test will have been done tomorrow." means that at a specific time tomorrow, the test has already been done.
For example, let's say that a military officer gives an order: "The recruits must do this test tomorrow. I will be here to check on this matter at 5 o'clock."
If the person responsible for fulfilling this order answers "The test will be done tomorrow.", he implies that the test will be done tomorrow at an unspecified time, meaning that it might be finished before or after 5 o'clock.
If he answers "The test will have been done.", he implies that at 5 o'clock, when the officer returns, the test will have ended.
Therefore, we can see that the latter is more specific in meaning.
Something with which I am not arguing. I just find the phrasing to be a bit clunky. Clunky is not wrong, just inelegant. Everything else you say I can concur with.
Kaj en tiu alia frazo (kun farota), oni fokusiĝas pri la nuna stato de la testo... kiu estos farita morgaŭ: oni pli tradukigus ĝin anglen en The test is going to be done tomorrow, aŭ io tiel. Laŭfakte, tiuj du frazoj samas, sed tiuj ne fokusigas pri la samaĵoj :-)
What does "laŭfakte" mean exactly? I can't find a definition any where even though I see it used often.
It’s a compound word (like most words in Esperanto :p), whose components are “laŭ”, “fakto”, and the adverbial ending “e”. It literally means “according to the fact“ (or “facts”, the plurality is not precised). I’m not sure whether “de facto” is used in English, but if so, it would be a good translation.
In this example, the two sentences La testo estas farota morgaŭ and The test will have been done tomorrow describe the same action/sequence of actions: there is currently no test, there will be one tomorrow, and there won’t be anymore tomorrow evening (or whatever). So, according to the facts, these two sentences are the same :-) However, one focuses on one precise facet of the action, while the other one focuses on another. It’s kind like the half empty/half full story of pessimists and optimists :-)
I hope this helps. :-) When confronted to a new word in Esperanto, don’t hesitate to try to cut it apart before looking for a definition: there are a lot of words built from others that can’t be find in any dictionary!
De facto is used in English, though it is often considered a "legal" term, used by lawyers in courts, and occasional university professors.
And, de facto, by people with largish vocabularies who love words.
"de facto" has a specific meaning in English: it's more like "these facts are as such because of the situation", e.g. "the couple hadn't seen each other in years; they are de facto separated". Literally from Latin "by the fact"
I though that it meant something like 'according to the fact' because of the root words used but wasn't sure. I've been wrong before. And when I couldn't find a definition, I wanted to make sure my guess was correct. Thanks for the clarification.
For "La testo estos farita morgaŭ" Duolingo accepts both of these English translations:
- The test will have been done tomorrow.
- The test will be done tomorrow.
I'm just wondering: Is one English translation favored over the other, or are they both equally acceptable?
In my opinion, your two English sentences differ in meaning. "The test will have been done tomorrow." means that by tomorrow the test will be over. The test is probably timed for later today, so that as soon as tomorrow comes, the speaker will be able to say, "The test has been done."
On the other hand, "The test will be done tomorrow." tells us that tomorrow is the day for sitting the test. I personally think that if that is the intended meaning, then "estos farata" would be better, as no particular time is included.
I agree that the two English sentences differ in meaning, but I think they are both reasonable translations of estos farita.
I disagree with your suggestion of estos farata as the present passive participle indicates, to me, something ongoing -- more like "the test will be in progress tomorrow" -- while the past passive participle indicates perfective aspect (not necessarily past tense), closer to "will be done".
Perhaps "The test will have been done by tomorrow" is the sense that you are looking for. "The test will have been done tomorrow" means that it could have been competed in the time leading up to tomorrow or on the day, tomorrow. By using the word "by" in the sentence it specifies that the test will have occurred before the date specified.
Most English speakers like to save words, when we can. Being laconic is often considered a virtue.
"The test will have been done tomorrow" is something I would never expect to hear in English. Perhaps there is some obscure grammar construction that could make the sentence grammatically correct; I'm not a linguist. But, if I heard someone say that sentence, I would look at them in dismay and assume they were schizophrenic or something. I was a psychology major in college, and that really does sound like something a schizophrenic would say.
My engineer wife (works for large aerospace contractor) told me about this very construct being used when they were testing missiles.
One is a passive participle, the other an active participle.
- Mi estos manĝita morgaŭ. "I will have been eaten tomorrow." (passive participle - someone will be eating you)
- Mi estos manĝinta morgaŭ. "I will have eaten tomorrow." (active participle - you will be doing the eating)
So La testo estos farinta morgaŭ would mean "The test will have done (something) tomorrow" -- but tests don't do anything themselves.
If the test is "made" tomorrow, my inclination is that we're talking about the creation of the test, not the taking of the test. How do other people read it?
"Testo" is an action, not something you create. You can invent the test, describe its methodology, and then you do the test. Are you confusing it with "ekzameno"?
This seems ambiguous. Does this mean the teacher will have written the test by tomorrow, or that the students will have taken it by tomorrow? What would be the preferred interpretation, or is it all context? What word would usually be used to suggest "taken" as opposed to "created" ?
I think it would depend on the context. There are other ways of putting it to avoid ambiguity. for example: "La testo esto kompilita" or "La testo estos partprenita".
What you prepare for the test is not the test itself. The test is being done when the person is being tested, not before.
The problem with that is that Esperanto uses the same verb "fari" for "to make" and "to do". So an ambiguity arises in this sentence. Does it mean that the test-setter will have written all the questions for the test, or that the people being tested will have answered all the questions? As I said before, the meaning depends on the context, which we don't have here.
The only people who can "fari la teston" are those who are tested. The test is not some object someone can build, it's the event of being tested.
I disagree. After all, in another lesson, there is a sentence about a song which is described as "fare de mia amiko". So there, the word with the "far" root means "composed" or "written". According to Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, "fari" can mean "Kaŭzi, ke io konkreta estiĝu" (Cause something concrete to exist), but it can also mean other things, including "Kaŭzi, ke io abstrakta estiĝu" (Cause something abstract to exist).
The word "kanto" is not like the word "testo". The song is what you sing, not the act of singing. The test is not what is tested. Try comparing "kantado" with "testo".
(I'm having to reply as if to your earlier message, as there was no "Reply" button on your latest one).
I understand that a song is what you sing, not the act of singing. But just as the song that you sing has to have been composed by somebody, so tests or exams have to be put together by somebody - they have to be brought into existence by someone other than the one being tested.
Forget about comparing "testo" and "kanto". "Testo" is the act, like "kantado". "Fari la kantado" is singing, not making the song. "Fari la testo" is testing, not preparing the test.