Žinutės: 71
Kalba: English
Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 3 d. 09:10:32
This explains why, in PIV2005, while manĝi is marked as transitive, matenmanĝi is intransitive. For this reason, I don't see it inconsistent with the Fundamento.
sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 3 d. 12:34:37
Yes, I don't see why Chainy and Erinja should get so fussed over the posting of a topic like this in the English Language Forum.
It's sort of obvious that beginner Anglophone Esperantists might be interested. Those drawn to Esperanto are often the intellectually curious (scivolema not stranga).
At the same time they might find it rather daunting to follow such a discussion in Esperanto. Especially as from the nature of the topic some of the arguments might get rather involved.
sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 3 d. 13:13:27
Though, someone opposed to the theory of native classes might draw some comfort from Compound words are formed by the simple junction of roots, (the principal word standing last) ...Grammatical terminations are considered as independent words.
However, as to the narrow point as to whether the transitivity (or intransitivity) of a verbal root must be preserved in a compound, I would wholly agree.
Matenmanĝi is intransitive and the reverse change (from intr to tr) can be seen in lumi (intr) and prilumi (tr). 'Ŝiaj okuloj eklumis' but 'La lumĵetilo prilumis la malamikan aviadilon'
Razlem 'matenmanĝo' is the Esperanto word for breakfast, whereas 'matenmanĝaĵo' would be a component of a breakfast ie some foodstuff associated with breakfast.
La tipa angla matenmanĝo konsistas el ovoj, lardo, kolbaso, fritita pantranĉo, tomato, fungo kaj aliaj manĝajoj ne ofte matene konsumitaj en Francujo.
qwertz (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 3 d. 13:36:13
sudanglo:We are all familiar...Sure.
Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 3 d. 16:04:48
sudanglo:Miland, I not sure what conclusion can be strictly drawn from rule 10 as to whether the native class (part of speech) of a root can change in compounding..My point was that both rule 10 and the examples I gave are part of the Fundamento, and therefore the change you refer to is permissible.
cFlat7 (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 4 d. 02:35:37
sudanglo:However in the case of 'Mi rimarkis lian ne-mastron de la akuzativo' this can only work if 'mastr' is interpreted verbally. (Mastr is listed as a substantive root in the Dictionary)Sudanglo, can you explain this a little bit further? I intuitively know what this means, of course, but the use of 'mastr' here seems strange to me. On its own, wouldn't "lia mastro" mean something like "his master" (e.g. The butler's boss)? Now with 'lia ne-mastro' ... what does that mean? Someone who is not his boss?
I checked PIV and the regular meaning of 'mastr' is typically related to the following meaning, "One who has some kind of mastery (regopovo)".
The verbal of this root appears to be similar to the verbalizing of other O-words (e.g. hundi = to be/act like a dog. Mastri = To master/control/manage like a 'mastro').
Perhaps if we turned the verbal (mastri) back into an O-word?
'Mi rimarkis lian ne-mastradon de la akuzativo.'
razlem (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 4 d. 02:50:42
sudanglo:Razlem 'matenmanĝo' is the Esperanto word for breakfast, whereas 'matenmanĝaĵo' would be a component of a breakfast ie some foodstuff associated with breakfast.Right, I was just saying that it's based around the action rather than the substantive.
tommjames (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 4 d. 09:42:00
razlem:Right, I was just saying that it's based around the action rather than the substantive.In the case of matenmanĝi I don't think that's necessarily true, and in fact I'd say there's an equally good case for viewing it as substantive. I'd read "ni matenmanĝas" similarly to "we're breakfasting" in English. That's taking a noun (breakfast/matenmanĝo) and making it into a verb.
The principle of "preciziga antaŭelemento" is not an absolute, and there are all kinds of compounds which don't follow the principle at all (PMEG calls them "vortigo de frazetoj"). It's true that matenmanĝo could be used for the act/event of eating breakfast. "Li ne lavis sin antaŭ la matenmanĝo" (from Nova Testamento). But using it for the meaning of the breakfast itself (the food) seems fairly common to me.
sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 4 d. 14:14:32
If we are to accept the account of the grammarians (that bunch of soul-less killjoys), then the substantive nature of 'mastr' means that only 'mi rimarkis lian ne-mastradon de la akuzativo' would be correct.
However, I might want to drive a distinction between ne-mastradon, which might be a process of continually making mistakes, and ne-mastron the result, the non-arrival at the state of a mastery.
Now obviously ne-mastro, someone who wasn't a master belonging to him, would be an unnatural interpretation in the phrase 'lian ne-mastron de la akuzativo'.
So the issue is are we bound absolutely to the theory of native classes or can a root change class in a context which forces interpretation in another class.
For example 'ekmastro' could hardly make any sense as a type of mastro (person), but works perfectly well as a nuanced shade of mastri.
Mi rimarkis lian ĵusan ekmastron de la akuzativo.
'Ekmastradon' makes me uncomfortable, because of the conflict of meaning between 'ad' and 'ek'.
erinja (Rodyti profilį) 2011 m. gruodis 4 d. 14:17:19