Talk:-at-

Rule 6 in Fundamento de Esperanto, seems really problematic due to that requirement for all passives. The very same text even seems to break that rule by modifying "venis" with "atendite". I've started to develop a theory that passive and participle form new proper categories when combined. "Patient substantive" for the o-word (o-vorto), seems copacetic with the zeitgeist of linguistics, but Zamenhoff described adverbial participles as unchangeable which I think of as "karmic". On cursory glance, I've found no evidence of karma in grammar, but that makes sense here. One's action augmented by another's action. That adverb form communicates the inter-connectivity of actions in terms of cause and effect. Eaterjolly (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Wiktionary is an appropriate venue for this kind of linguistic speculation. Unfortunately, your commentary (to the extent that I can understand it) is not supported by any Esperantologist study into the verbal/participle system. Audrey (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)