Translation:Before, I ate in order to live. Now I live to eat.
I reported "Before I ate so as to live. Now I live so as to eat." as another posible option. But since English isn't my native language I am not that sure whether it conveys the same message. What do you think?
As a native English speaker, yes, it means the same thing.
The only thing I'd say is that it doesn't pack the same punch, but I'm guessing you figured that.
Really, it is okay? That's funny, English is not my first language and what you suggested makes absolutely no sense to me :D
Yep. It's a little odd sounding, and less frequently used but "so as to" is similar in usage to "in order to".
Wouldn't using 'antaue + past participle' imply the imperfect tense? 'previously i ate' = ' I used to eat' so the 'before' in the translation is superfluous.
The reason for including 'before' is because you're meant to demonstrate your understanding of the equivalent of 'antaŭe' in English is 'before'.
I do not understand why 'por' are used here. It seems like '"Antaŭe mi manĝis vivi. Nun mi vivas manĝi.' would be a simpler sentence. I am left with why are they even there?
Por="for/because of/in order to" "I eat (in order) to live now i live (in order) to eat". In English the "in order to" can be left out but other languages require it for certain verbs. Also be aware that "for" in English indicates may things, purpose/use of/exchange/causation, in many other languages these are separate words e.g. Spanish Por=Exchange/Causation "here are some beans (in exchange) for your cow" Para=Purpose/Use of "here are some beans for your cow (to eat)" .
If you said "Mi manĝis vivi" that literally means "I ate living." When you see an infinitive in Esperanto, it's usually acting like a noun, or maybe a verb where the verb that precedes it is a helping verb or a linking verb.
Literally, "Mi manĝis por vivi" means "I ate for living." A word-for-word translation would be, "I ate for to live," but we don't use infinitives that way in English.
Now, a word-for-word translation of "Mi manĝis vivi" would be "I ate to live", but it doesn't mean what it first sounds like; it literally means you ate the infinitive "to live". In any translation, you can't just translate word for word; you need to know what part of speech each word is and how all the words go together.
A word-for-word translation would be, "I ate for to live," but we don't use infinitives that way in English.
Not anymore, anyway! If you know the American folk song "O Suzanna", there's a line in there "my true love for to see."
Yes, "vivi" can translate as "to live", but in "I ate to live", the "to" is not that same indication of an infinitive. Rather, it's a preposition meaning something like "for the purpose of". Strictly speaking, the English would have to be "I ate to to live" to get the proper infinitive, but that second "to" is dropped. It's still present if the preposition in front of it isn't "to.": "I ate so as to live.", "I ate for to live.".
Esperanto doesn't drop a word here, hence it requires both the preposition and the infinitive. The infinitive is "vivi", the preposition is "por": "I ate for to live."
I come from Alabama with
A banjo on my knee
I'm goin' to Louisiana
My true love for to see.
Favourite sentence so far :d
Does this help?
Yeah, I'm just not used to using correlatives like tiel and tial that don't have good English equivalents. I think I get it now though. Thanks!
It's a stylistic device called "chiasmus", from "The miser", a comedy of Moliere, a french author.
I got the piece together version of this wrong because why is it so wordy? Before i ate to live, now i live to eat. Much more simple.
What's the difference between “antaŭ” and “antaŭe”? Wiktionary is not really helpful. :/
Antaŭe is an adverb, and I believe antaŭ is a preposition. So for example, I think you'd use "antaŭ" when saying something like "I came before him", but "antaŭe" when you're describing the past or something.