Thank-you for that detailed response. The use of the passive prefix “ge-” differs from construct detailed in the grammar document I downloaded from you site last year ( and is dated May 2005 ) so a will wait until the latest version of the grammar appears on the site until considering this further. However, it good to see that you are taking such issues seriously and are willing to modify the language accordingly.

Robin.

Your question gives us a good opportunity to illustrate how Ayola avoids ambiguities with passive verb constructions requiring the use of the helping verb, ‘to be.’

Here’s how Ayola would handle the phrases you listed using the transitive verb form rompware (to break):

Monday - Someone breaks a window. Samyo rompwats fenestro.
Tuesday - I look at the window and see (that) it is broken. Myo regardats la fenestro ce myo vidats ke dwa estats gerompwinta.
Wednesday - Someone repairs the window. Samyo reparats la fenestro.

Was the window broken on Tuesday?
This question is ambiguous in English. In Ayola, we have two possible translations:
1) Ey la fenestro gerompwits enu Mardon? (Did the breaking occur on Tuesday?)
Answer: Now, dwa gerompwits enu Lundon. No, it was broken on Monday.
2) Ey la fenestro estits gerompwinta enu Mardon? (Was the window in a broken state on Tuesday?)
Answer: Hay, la fenestro estits awne gerompwinta enu Mardon. Yes, the window was still broken on Tuesday.

Instead of using a helping verb to construct the passive form, Ayola applies the prefix ge- to the verb, e.g. the verb rompware (to break) becomes gerompware (to be broken). In Ayola the verb estare (to be) is used together with an adjective to describe a state or property, e.g. ‘the state of being broken’ as opposed to an action, e.g. ‘the act of breaking’. Note that passive verbs refer to an action; adjectives derived from passive verbs preceded by the verb estare refer to a state.

Also key to disambiguating the English phrases is Ayola’s use of the -int- suffix for verbs in the perfect aspect which is independent of the passive prefix ge-. Note the differences between these infinitive forms:
rompware to break
rompwintare to have broken
gerompware to be broken (to undergo the breaking action)
gerompwintare to have been broken (to have undergone the breaking action)

Dya rompwats la fenestro. He breaks the window.
Dya rompwintats la fenestro. He has broken the window.
Fenestroy gerompwats enu caka semano. Windows are broken every week.
La fenestro gerompwintats enu Lundon. The window has been broken on Monday.

We hope that this explanation sufficiently answers your question. We invite you and other forum readers to present us with your observations of ambiguities in natural and other auxiliary languages for translation in Ayola.

Ayolayn Recercwayn Grupon

There does not appear to be a specific area for asking questions, so I hope you do not mind if I ask a question here ( if you do mind then I grovellingly apologise ).

My question concerns the use of the copula + participle for the passive.

Let us take the following scenario :-

Monday - Someone breaks a windows.
Tuesday - I look at the window a see it is broken.
Wednesday - Someone repairs the window.

I will go through this in English first.

Was the window broken on Tuesday?

Answer 1 - No, it was broken on Monday.
Answer 2 - Yes, the windows was still broken on Tuesday.

The way I see it is that in Ayola you would say about Tuesday :-

“La fenestro estis rompata”.

Would this have the same ambiguity?

Esperanto has the same problem and it has lead to a hundred year of argument over ita/ata.

Robin.