"We were writing in pencil."

Translation:Ni estis skribantaj per krajono.

June 21, 2015



So would it also be possible to say Ni estas skribintaj? Ni estis skribintaj? Ni skribintis? Ni skribantis? Ni skribintas?

Edit: I think I get it. It's talking about the time (in the past, hence "estis") when the action was currently taking place (hence "-ant"). I think "skribantis" would be identical.

"Estas skribintaj" = "skribintas" would be referencing the current time (hence "(est)as"), when the action had already taken place (hence "-int"). More or less the same case, but a slightly different nuance.

"Estis skribintaj" = "Skribintis" would be about a time in the past (hence "(est)is"), when the action was already in the past (i.e. even further in the past) (hence "-int"). Again a different nuance.

Is that more or less right? I hope so, because it'd be kinda cool how you could do all these different perspectives forward and backward in time, both from the present, and from the particular time you're talking about, looking toward a particular action that might be at a different time again.

June 21, 2015


Anyway most of the participles are not used very often (mostly in literature) and the 3*3 variants (estis/as/os skribinta/anta/onta) are more exact than many non-planned languages can express. It seems to me that your proposed "short forms" are not used, maybe not "illegal" though. Look yourself after PMEG at www.Bertilow.com .

June 21, 2015


I found it in the end, but it's true that it took me a while, so it's probably not very common, at best, like you said. Still, in principle it seems like I understood correctly.

Thanks for that link, by the way, I hadn't found that before. It's very useful :)

June 22, 2015
Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.