There are a few situations in which English-speaking Esperantists tend to make a really horrible error with their participles, confusing the past active and past passive participle. I thought of this the other day when I saw an extremely competent Esperanto speaker, in a newsgroup posting, refer to a *"velkita folio" (apparently "withered leaf").
Well, let's be charitable -- it might have been a simple typo. But in far too many cases I've heard members of Esperanto groups, in conversations, refer to themselves as *"pagita membro" (a paid member). Show me a group in which I can be a "pagita membro" and I'll join at once, my only question being: "How much?" as I hold out my hand for my stipend.
Problem is that, in English, we almost invariably assume that the past participle is passive, and so when translating it into Esperanto without thinking, we almost always use the -ITA ending. But even in English the past participle isn't always passive. Take a look at two situations:
(1) When the participle is used as an adjective. In this situation, the participle of a transitive verb (one that can take a direct object) is almost always passive. But the participle of an intransitive verb (one that can't take a direct object) is always active. [Some verbs have both transitive and intransitive meanings, in which case the participle can be either active or passive]. Examples (with Esperanto translations given later):
A satisfied customer ("to satisfy" is transitive -- participle is passive)
A fallen tree ("to fall" is intransitive -- participle is active)
A drowned rat ("to drown" can be either -- participle can be either, depending on meaning)(2) When the participle is used as part of a compound verb, it is neither active nor passive -- activity or passivity is determined by the helping verb ("to have" or "to be" respectively. Examples:
The customer has satisfied me (active)
The customer was satisfied (passive)
The tree has fallen (active)
The tree ... woops! an intransitive verb can't have a passive form!
The rat has drowned (active)
The rat was drowned (passive)
There are, as usual, a few exceptions to these rules. The most obvious one, to my mind, at least, is that obnoxious "paid". In this case, used as an adjective, it can be active ("paid member") or passive ("paid hit-man"). The active use, in this particular case, is effectively an idiom.
In Esperanto, of course, activity or passivity is a function of the participial ending only. Any intransitive verb can have an active participle; any transitive verb can have either an active or a passive participle. And they are used exactly as they are meant. Examples:
(1) When the participle is used as an adjective:
Kontentigita ac^etanto. (n.b.: Most people would simply say "kontenta ac^etanto")
Falinta arbo
Droninta rato (n.b.: verbs in Esperanto are generally either transitive or intransitive, not both)(2) When the participle is part of a "compound verb". WARNING: In Esperanto there really is no such animal -- the only helping verb is "esti", the participle is in reality an adjective, and the English compound verb effectively becomes the simple Esperanto form X-o estas Y-a, where Y is the participle.
La ac^etanto estas kontentiginta min
La ac^etanto estis kontentigita
La arbo estas falinta
La rato estas droninta
La rato estis dronigita
Now look at our two misexamples. "Withered leaf" -- is this a leaf that has withered or a leaf that was withered? Actually, "to wither" is, I believe, intransitive -- at least in this usage -- and we are really trying to say has withered. So we are definitely talking "active", and we want velkinta folio.
"Paid member" is a bit more difficult, since "to pay" is most definitely transitive, and most uses of "paid" are definitely passive. "Paid money" is, for instance, pagita mono; and "a paid hit-main" is definitely pagita asasino. But "paid member" is not "a member who was paid" but "a member who has paid", and the Esperanto, then, has to be paginta membro.
Ultimately, when you need to use a past participle, always think of what you are trying to say. As a simple rule of thumb, try thinking of your participle in terms of the following formula: "who/which [has, was] done whatever is in the verb". If you must select "has", the participle is always active (-INTA); if, rather, you'd select "was", the participle is passive (-ITA).
Simple exercises:
(1) Use participles to translate the following phrases ("to post" = afiži, at least in internet parlance):
The woman who-has-posted
The information that-was-posted
The tree has fallen.
The cat has eaten the rat.
The rat was eaten by the cat.
The alert reader will have noticed that the apparently symmetric English "has" and "was" in the examples given above are replaced by the unsymmetric Esperanto "estas" and "estis" respectively. At this point the alert reader should be saying, wisely: "Huh???"
The problem is not that the Esperanto forms are unsymmetric, but that the English meanings are unsymmetric. Simply put,
X has Yed
means: "X is in a state of having Yed".
On the other hand,
X was Yed
generally means "X was in a state of having been Yed".
So the meanings aren't really very symmetric after all, even if the forms are. In Esperanto, this non-symmetricity of meanings is reflected in the forms used.
Unfortunately, that second example can also (occasionally) mean: "X was in a state of being Yed", or even "X was coming into a state of being Yed" -- the meaning has to be determined from context. The same thing is true, to greater and lesser degrees, in certain other European languages. This led to the great several-decade-long war of -ATA vs. -ITA, which detractors of Esperanto have often pointed to as an example of impreciseness in the use of the participle system. Sadly, it was nothing of the sort -- it was a reflection of such imprecision in the native languages of those who fought over the uses and meanings of these participles. Considered strictly in the context of Esperanto, the participles' use and meanings are quite clear and precise.
Don Harlow <donh@donh.best.vwh.net>