"ing" does too much in English

Here’s a little treat that is floating around the internet in all sorts of nooks and crannies. All of the following mean "I saw the boy running":

1. mi vidis la knabon kuri
2. mi vidis la knabon kuranta
3. mi vidis la knabon kurantan

What’s the difference between them?

The explanation is usually in Esperanto, or buried in discussions in the Lernu forums. So good ole me has done the digging, and here’s my impression! Basics:

knabo
boy

vidi
to see

kuri
to run / running

-anta
present participle ending (see series on participles), it shows that an action is ongoing.

So in all of the examples, I saw a boy, and my seeing of him involved him running.

The difference between -i and -anta(n):

The verb with just “i” (kuri), simply states the action in general. It is the base form of the verb. The action was seen, and you could have seen the action finish. Because it gives no information about tense or completedness about the action.

Whereas -anta(n) specifically treats the action as an ongoing or repeated process. Using -anta(n) says nothing about the action being completed, or what happened subsequently; I simply saw the ongoing action.

The difference between -anta and -antan:

The knabo is the direct object here; the boy is being seen (the object of vidis) - not doing the seeing. When we’re describing an object we have a choice to add the “n” or not. This well known example shows the difference this “n” can make:

li farbis la domon ruĝa
he painted the house red

Li farbis la domon ruĝan = Li farbis la ruĝan domon
He painted the red house

If the “n” is present, then the a-word is matching the o-word’s “n”, and is therefore just an attribute of the o-word. In other words, the house was already red when he began painting it. The house that he painted, just happened to be red.

If the “n” is not present, then the a-word is not an attribute, it is the result of the action or something that happens during the action. So the a-word is now emphasised; he painted something red, and the house happened to be what he painted. See my previous post for more explanation on this.

So here’s the three translations. Notice how in practice 1 and 2 will probably translate the same. I’ve included the nuance in brackets:

1. I saw the boy running (I may have seen him finish running)
2. I saw the boy running (I am only saying I saw the ongoing running)
3. I saw the running boy (He was running when I saw him)

See how 1 and 2 emphasise the running because it’s not just an attribute of the boy. What we saw was the running, and the boy happened to be doing it.

In 3, the emphasis is with the boy, the running is just what he happened to be doing when I saw him (it was just an attribute of the boy).

Even more fun:

What happens if we up and do this?

Mi vidis la knabon kurante

An adverbial participle! If you know the difference between adverbs and adjectives (e-words and a-words in Esperanto) the answer may well be obvious!

Here’s the key bit of info:

• Adjectives (a-words) describe nouns (o-words), but
• Adverbs (e-words) describe anything BUT nouns. In this sentence, a verb.

So, before, kurant-a(n) was describing the o-word (knabo), the boy, kurant-e now describes the main verb, the “seeing”.

In other words, the seeing was done while running.

Does the following make it clearer?

kurante mi vidis la knabon
(while) running, I saw the boy

The person doing the seeing is doing the running now!

Thanks to the commenter guleblanc (on the old blog) for reminding me of this extra fun!