Okulvitro (okul + vitr + o): "okulo" means eye + "vitro" means glass + o indicates a noun.
The term may be old-fashioned but it is part of the language:
So 'glasses' is plural just like it is in English. I'm disappointed that 'okulvitro' (singular) doesn't mean a monocle.
Well, some dictionaries say precisely that: okul·vitr·o is ‘a monocle, an ocular, an eyepiece or a lens of a pair of eyeglasses’. :)
Esperanto is the most logical language of all, therefore any reasonable construction put in the right context makes perfect sense. You may like to see Claude Piron's article on evolution of Esperanto “Evolution is a Proof of Life”, and especially parts nr 12 (“The prefix mal- in spoken Esperanto”) and nr 11 (“The suffix -umi”).
I was taking a chance to see if this is a valid answer. "Did you see my glasses?" But is there another word past tense then...
If you want to use past tense, change the verb suffix from -as to -is. To say "Did you see my glasses?", you would say "Ĉu vi vidis miajn okulvitrojn?"
Sed kiel mi povus trovi viajn okulvitrojn kiam mi ne havas miajn okulvitrojn?!
"Have you seen my glasses?" is past tense. The question is present tense (you can tell by the -as ending on vidas) so the answer is also present tense "Do you see my glasses?"
No, it is not. "Have you seen my glasses" is the present perfect. "Did you see my glasses" is in the past tense, and does not mean the same thing.
If you saw my glasses yesterday, but don't know where they are now, then: - The answer to "did you see my glasses?" is yes, because you saw them yesterday. - The answer to "have you seen my glasses?" is no, because you don't know where they are right now.
I'll agree, though, that "do you see my glasses" and "have you seen my glasses" are not quite the same, I was just wondering if there's a meaningful way to distinguish them. Does Esperanto have a present perfect?
Oh this thread. To answer the question I actually asked, and having done much more of the course: yes, Esperanto has a present perfect, though they try to avoid using it when the regular tenses are clear enough. We use it a lot more when speaking English. I think "Ĉu vi vidis miajn okulvitrojn" is a reasonable approximate translation, but it literally means "Did you see my glasses?" The literal, specific translation is "Ĉu vi estas vidinta miajn okulvitrojn," literally "Have you seen my glasses?"
The "estas/estis/estos" + "vidinta/vidanta/vidonta" form has an astonishing nine combinations, which translate in English to "had you seen my glasses," "had you been seeing my glasses," "had you been going to see my glasses," "have you seen my glasses," "are you seeing my glasses," "are you going to see my glasses," "will you have seen my glasses," "will you be seeing my glasses," and even "will you be going to see my glasses."
There's even another nine: You can say "estas/estis/estos" + "vidita/vidata/vidota" (note the n has been removed from the verb). This converts the whole thing to passive voice: "Ĉu miaj okulvitroj estas vidita" means "Have my glasses been seen." And you can expand that out into nine tenses as well. It's very expressive, but you can write really confusing sentences this way, so don't use it when you don't need to.
"Do you see my glasses" is asking do you see them right now. "Have you seen my glasses" is asking have you ever seen them, have you seen them at some point. Not only that, but "Have you seen my glasses" does not have to be present in space either. Your glasses could be at your home, and while discussing fashion with a friend at their place you could ask "Have you seen my glasses". In this case the glasses are no where near the people in either space or time.