글: 59
언어: English
razlem (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 5:16:10
darkweasel (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 5:38:03
razlem:Does anyone know which term Zamenhof preferred, or which one came first?In the Fundamento, SOIF/ is translated as a verb at least to French and German (English-language "thirst" is ambiguous and I don’t know Polish or Russian).
erinja (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 7:16:01
The Esperanto definition for "soifi" is "senti bezonon trinki", so "Mi soifas" works perfectly.
However, Esperanto is a very flexible language. I see "Mi soifas" as the preferable form, but there's nothing stopping anyone from saying "Mi havas soifon". It's not wrong, it's just unusual. This is one of Esperanto's advantages. If you don't know the usual idiom for something, you just say a grammatical construction that makes sense, and that's fine too.
"Mi estas soifanta" is grammatically correct but unnecessarily long and wordy. Nothing technically wrong with it, though.
Chainy (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 7:49:54
razlem:The Russian is a verb. So it's safe to assume (because 3 of the 5 translated languages are verbs) that "soif" is an inherent verbFour are certainly verbs, so it's safe to assume that 'thirst' is intended as such, too.
1. avoir soif
2. thirst
3. dursten
4. pragnąć, doznawać pragnienia
5. жаждать
- The Russian translation only really fits the figurative sense of 'soifi', as in 'to thirst for' in the sense of 'to long for, crave, yearn etc'.
razlem (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 10:03:37
erinja:I say "mi soifas". It works like the hunger verb, malsati ("to be hungry"; it's "sati", "to be full/satiated", with a mal- prefix). Mi satas = I'm full/satiated; Mi malsatas = I'm hungry.Interesting Zamenhof would use "satiated" for hunger and "thirst" for thirst rather than "hunger" or "hydrated" respectively.
The Esperanto definition for "soifi" is "senti bezonon trinki", so "Mi soifas" works perfectly.
However, Esperanto is a very flexible language. I see "Mi soifas" as the preferable form, but there's nothing stopping anyone from saying "Mi havas soifon". It's not wrong, it's just unusual. This is one of Esperanto's advantages. If you don't know the usual idiom for something, you just say a grammatical construction that makes sense, and that's fine too.
"Mi estas soifanta" is grammatically correct but unnecessarily long and wordy. Nothing technically wrong with it, though.
It just seems like a lot to remember just to recognize one concept. :/
mjdh1957 (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 26일 오후 10:30:22
Leke:The programme was called Planet Word.sudanglo:Last night saw the screening of the first programme in a series on language, presented by one of our most articulate TV presenters, Mr. Stephen Fry.What was it called? I'll have to run a torrent search
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 9월 27일 오전 10:58:01
Care to elaborate a bit on this? From what I've just read, it seems like you're saying any language that differs from English has no virtue.Not at all Razlem.
I'm just saying that it may be quite charming that different languages have different ways (structural methods) of expressing certain ideas, as illustrated by my example with French and English - and we could add 'Mi soifas' from Esperanto. (Though as Erinja points out you are not necessarily tied to a set formula in Esperanto.)
But such differences between languages, which some of a linguistic bent find gushingly so wonderful, do not in themselves add expressive power.
It seems to me that what is really important about any language is not so much the specific 'how', but what you can say in that language - that perhaps you can't in some other language. Therein lies the value.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that some language enthusiasts, who might argue for the preservation of the current Babel situation, are just in love with diversity for diversity's sake, rather than because of some significant consequence of that diversity.