К содержанию
Ответить

Warning! Advanced Topic

от sudanglo, 2 декабря 2011 г.

Сообщений: 71

Язык: English

UUano (Показать профиль) 6 декабря 2011 г., 0:00:33

Miland:
UUano:..is there a difference between mastr* and majstr*?
In Wells we have
majstr/o master(-craftsman); maestro; Master
mastr/o master (of a house, of servants etc); ~-i dominate; master (a subject); ~-umi keep house, manage (household etc)

So the first is like an honorific; majstra grado means "Master's degree". The second is associated with actual domination or command, though the latter can be used metaphorically, as in mastering a subject.
Hrm...I never got the sense that mastri would be used in that way, and thought that majstri would be prefered in case of metaphor. demando.gif

Miland (Показать профиль) 6 декабря 2011 г., 17:54:05

UUano:
Miland:
UUano:..is there a difference between mastr* and majstr*?
In Wells we have..
Hrm...I never got the sense that mastri would be used in that way..
If you want more evidence than in Wells ( shoko.gif ), in Butler the entries for majstr-o include Master (of his art) and a title applied to Z. Majstreco applies to pre-eminence.

Mastr-o means boss, owner, ruler, while mastri means to dominate or rule, and mastrumi means to keep house or manage.

As for PIV 2005, I'll leave that to others to look up. rido.gif

UUano (Показать профиль) 6 декабря 2011 г., 18:22:04

Miland:If you want more evidence than in Wells ( shoko.gif ), in Butler the entries for majstr-o include Master (of his art) and a title applied to Z. Majstreco applies to pre-eminence.
Nah, no further evidence requested. I was just speaking from my impressions, not from any knowledgeable or academic position. As a learner, I have to trust those with more experience than me. rideto.gif

This is just one of those things that doesn't feel right to me for some reason. senkulpa.gif

sudanglo (Показать профиль) 7 декабря 2011 г., 12:19:02

Perhaps it would help you, UUano, to think of.

Music Maestro!

Igor, see that the girl does not escape. Yes, master.

sudanglo (Показать профиль) 7 декабря 2011 г., 12:43:46

razlem:Esperanto (according to the Fundamento) uses endocentric compounding
I had to look up the meaning of the word 'endocentric'. I found:

fulfilling the grammatical role of one of its constituents
Familiarity information: ENDOCENTRIC used as an adjective is very rare.

This hardly sheds any light on the matter since the issue is, in the first place, whether the notion of grammatical class can be properly applied to a lexical root.

Obviously, 'o' 'a' 'i' etc are grammatical markers so 'manĝi' must be a verb and 'manĝo' must be a noun, as must be 'matenmanĝo'.

If 'endocentric' means no more than that the class of the compound can be identified from the finaĵo, this doesn't get us anywhere.

I do wish those of a linguistic leaning would try to use more plain language and not indulge their penchant for obscurantist jargon.

tommjames (Показать профиль) 7 декабря 2011 г., 12:59:13

sudanglo:
From this Wikipedia article (the first result in Google when searching "endocentric"):
An endocentric compound consists of a head, i.e. the categorical part that contains the basic meaning of the whole compound, and modifiers, which restrict this meaning. For example, the English compound doghouse, where house is the head and dog is the modifier, is understood as a house intended for a dog. Endocentric compounds tend to be of the same part of speech (word class) as their head, as in the case of doghouse. (Such compounds were called tatpuruṣa in the Sanskrit tradition.)

razlem (Показать профиль) 7 декабря 2011 г., 15:17:28

sudanglo:This hardly sheds any light on the matter since the issue is, in the first place, whether the notion of grammatical class can be properly applied to a lexical root.
Zamenhof thought so, as each entry in the Fundamento Vortaro has an assigned part of speech. Think anything less and you'll be accused of reform. *GASP* lango.gif

sudanglo (Показать профиль) 7 декабря 2011 г., 21:43:18

My knowledge of the early history is not perfect Razlem, but I think that the concept of each root belonging to its own grammatical class did not emerge immediately, and that the early Esperantists considered that a root could belong to more than one class - or, at least, that they did not feel the need for rigid grammatical classification of lexical roots.

And they could have pointed to Manĝ being defined verbally in the UV and Matenmanĝ (also in the UV) being defined as a noun - which I suppose means that Manĝ in this compound has to be a noun.

It wasn't until the sixties that the Akademio formally sanctioned the analysis of Waringhien and Kalocsay. Previously, I think that the principle of sufiĉo and neceso was considered enough.

That is the idea was that compound forms contained just those roots that were essential and sufficient to convey the meaning (relying on common sense and knowledge of the world).

As the language developed, so the number of roots required to specify an idea tended to get whittled down.

razlem (Показать профиль) 8 декабря 2011 г., 1:13:45

Roots need assigned parts of speech, or the language would be completely chaotic. What would be better is assigning all words to a singular part of speech (i.e. all roots are verbs), and deriving the other parts of speech from that root, rather than what we're doing here: playing a guessing game as to which part of speech works better, or whether it has one at all. If you say "manĝ is not assigned a part of speech", then there can't be any rules regarding its usage with other roots/affixes (it would obsolete 'aĵ', for example). It's a consistency issue.

Regarding Zamenhof's assignment of parts of speech to roots, you can look at the original Fundamento free of charge via GoogleBooks. While not explicitly stated, the translations of the roots into French, English, German, Russian, and Polish strongly suggest the assignment of a part of speech.

cFlat7 (Показать профиль) 8 декабря 2011 г., 2:21:40

Assigning all roots to the same class would lead to extra grammatical endings wouldn't it? E.g. if they were all to be classed as verbs:  

La altanta viranto forkuras elegantante. = The tall man runs away elegantly.

And of course you'd probably need to leave all the natural adverbs and particles as-is (like 'for', 'se', 'ankaŭ', etc).

Наверх