Thoughts on passive participles
Foreword
The most languages I know have just one passive participle for every verb - like in English told for tell, opened for open and so on. We are used to cope many different situations with this single form. However, while creating his masterpiece, Esperanto, Zamenhof introduced a system of verbs, where the idea
-i for the past, -a for the present, -o for the future
is expanded also to the participles. Thus Esperanto - and later also
Ido - got a very powerful arsenal for expressing thoughts, specially in passive. For example in Esperanto the verbs
esti (= be) and
ŝlosi (= lock) form 9 different passive phrases: estis ŝlosita / estas ŝlosita / estos ŝlosita / estis ŝlosata / estas ŝlosata / estos ŝlosata / estis ŝlosota / estas ŝlosota / estos ŝlosota. However this looks very confusing! What do these phrases actually mean?
Participle of the past - ŝlosita
11) Je 10:30 horo la pordo estis ŝlosita.
This means that 10:30 o'clock
the door was locked - in the sense that nobody could then get in without a key. Someone had closed the door before 10:30.
12) La pordo estas nun ŝlosita.
The same way: the door is now locked. You need a key.
13) La pordo estos ŝlosita je 21 horo.
The door may be locked or unlocked now; in any case at 21 o'clock you will need a key!
These examples tell that a participle of the past is like an
adjective. Here it tells a
state of the door, namely
"locked". Note that the indicated point of time does
not denote the time of closing action itself!
Participle of the present - ŝlosata
21) Je 10:30 horo la pordo estis ŝlosata.
It means: Someone was locking the door at 10:30 o'clock.
22) La pordo estas nun ŝlosata.
Just now the door is being locked - maybe by the janitor.
23) La pordo estos ŝlosata je 21 horo.
Someone will lock the door at 21 o'clock.
The participle of the present means a real
action. We can also think a state of change:
"become closed".
Participle of the future - ŝlosota
31) Je 10:30 horo la pordo estis ŝlosota.
At 10:30 the door was in the unlocked state, but it was due to be locked (later on).
32) La pordo estas nun ŝlosota.
The door is now waiting for someone to lock it.
33) La pordo estos ŝlosota je 21 horo.
This sounds crazy, but can be explained: The door does maybe not yet wait for being locked, but at 21 o'clock it will wait!!
Like the participle of the past, the participle of the future also has the nature of an adjective. It tells the state of the door:
"due to be locked". Note also here that the indicated point of time does not denote the time of closing action!
Is it a good system?!
As I said, I find the idea of Zamenhof ingenious. When comparing to the most other languages - natural or constructed - the verbal system of Esperanto and Ido seems to conquer. You can reach many nuances in an easy and coherent way.
However Otto Jespersen, the creator of Novial, criticized this system. He thought that for example the 9 combinations discussed above are difficult to distinguish from one another - specially by ear. I share this concern. The system is also quite redundant: there are combinations which are very seldom - if ever - really needed. In most situations the context explains the meaning. An interesting question is: do an average Esperantist or Idist really catch easily the meanings of these combinations, so much like each other?! I still hope so!
Examples on other ways to go
With Esperanto I'll take three more languages: Swedish, Novial and LFN (=Elefen) to show other ideas.
Past: (E) La pordo esas (esis / esos) ŝlosita.
(S) Dörren är (var / skall vara) låst. / (N) Li porte es (esed / sal es) klefisat. / (L) La porte es (ia es / va es) securida.
Present: (E) La pordo esas (esis / esos) ŝlosata.
(S) Dörren låses (låstes / skall låsas) / (N) Li porte bli (blid / sal bli) klefisa. / (L) La porte deveni (ia deveni / va deveni) securida.
Future: (E) La pordo esas (esis / esos) ŝlosota.
(S) Dörren väntar (väntade / skall vänta) att låsas. (N) Li porte varta (vartad / sal varta) bli klefisa. / (L) La porte espeta (ia espeta / va espeta) deveni securida.
This test has been done on the conditions of Esperanto. Thus it doesn't surprise that Esperanto seems to have here the most elegant forms. The other languages don't have standard solutions to the challenges Esperanto throws. The translations to the other languages can be made in many ways. Note that both in the Swedish and in the Novial translation only the past tense uses a participle. In the other tenses it is more natural to use a (genuine) passive form of the verb.
Finally I want to point out the phrases in LFN (Elefen). They are not so concise than those of Esperanto, but they make the meaning clear and are easily distinguished, one from another.
A participle as an adjective
Let's still compare Elefen and Esperanto (or this time Ido!) in how they can use participles as adjectives.
For example we can say in Ido:
(Ido) Transpozez la lavita kamizi a sinistra e le lavata a dextra!
It is: "Move the already cleaned shirts to the left and those still under cleaning to the right"!
In Elefen there is only one passive participle, like in English:
(Elefen) Move la camisas ja lavada a sinistra e los ancora lavada a destra!
Without any context you could not know the exact meaning of:
(Elefen) la motor lubricada
It can be some of the following:
(Ido) la lubrifikita motoro / la lubrifikata motoro / la lubrifikota motoro
But of course we usually have a context!
(Elefen) Un laboriste veni a la garaje con un bote de olio. "Do es la motor lubricada?!", el demanda.
OK. Now we know!
