Beiträge: 71
Sprache: English
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 12:34:45
So Bros means a thing and Komb means an action. So it's Broso for a brush and Kombilo for a comb (the thing).
In other words, the meanings of formations from the roots depends on the meaning of the roots.
But how absolute is this? Can compounding change the character of the root?
It is debatable whether Manĝ in Matenmanĝo means a meal or an eating.
However in 'La doktoro atentigis pri la ne-manĝo far la paciento de freŝaj legomoj', the Manĝ is clearly verbal.
There have been cases where a shift in the clasification of a root has appeared. For example Lumi was the entry in the Fundamenta Universal Vortaro. But NPIV lists Lumo.
This is fair enough. It may well be that changing the class of a root better accounts for its actual usage.
But what are we to say of, for example. 'Li forŝaltis la lumon' on the one hand and 'Li komentis pri la ne-lumon de la steloj en tiu nuba nokto' on the other hand.
Or to give another example, do you find it strange to say, 'mi rimarkis lian ne-mastron de la akuzativo' even though Mastr is classified as substantive.
Personally I have always been a Zamenhofist and seen Esperanto compounding as a pragmatic device, and viewed with deep suspicion later attempts by the grammarians at systematization (only sanctioned by the Akademio in the 60's)
erinja (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 12:44:56
sudanglo:However in 'La doktoro atentigis pri la ne-manĝo far la paciento de freŝaj legomoj', the Manĝ is clearly verbal.Do you really use the word far?
----
Compounding in Esperanto has never been subject to strict rules like other aspects of grammar. The word "fiŝkapti", for example, doesn't really follow any kind of grammatical logic; you would really have to work in a way to put -n on "fiŝ/" to have that make sense. It seems to me like logical sense is the basis of putting together a compound word, rather than strict root classifications.
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 12:47:56
Chainy (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 13:02:22
sudanglo:Yup! More elegant than double 'de'. And it's not the patient who wasn't eaten."Far" sounds really odd to me. I can accept that you find it useful, but in this case I would much prefer to use 'fare de' as recommended by PMEG: fare de
Chainy (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 13:05:15
Again, why is this discussion taking place in the English-language forum? It would be much better to talk about this kind of thing in the Esperanto forum - you would get better responses and from a wider range of people.
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 16:48:41
No grammarian enamoured of the notion of native word classes for Esperanto roots would argue that this word alters the grammatical class of 'fiŝ' or 'kapt'. Fiŝ remains a substantive root as Kapt remains a verbal one.
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)
erinja (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 19:09:21
At any rate, why indeed are you posing this question here, to a bunch of English speakers?
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 2. Dezember 2011 20:43:41
And the beginner anglophone Esperantist also has a right to be protected from the tyranny of the grammarians.
But, back on topic - in science if the facts don't fit the theory then the theory is tweaked until the tension with the facts becomes so great that the theory has to be abandoned.
So I put the question - how many cases of the grammatical class of a root changing in a compound would you need for the abandonment of the theory that all lexical roots in Esperanto have a native word class?
I don't doubt that this theory works in a high proportion of cases. But I have never heard it argued by the theoreticians that this theory is just a convenient approximation.
Rather it is put forward as a true theory of how Esperanto works.
And since I suspect the true description is simpler than the edifice erected by the theoreticians, it could be worth having a defence against this onslaught by the professional grammarians.
I recall that the discussion of this topic in PAG goes on for pages and pages.
Why have a view of Esperanto in which the language is more complicated than it actually is.
razlem (Profil anzeigen) 3. Dezember 2011 01:58:43
sudanglo:It is debatable whether Manĝ in Matenmanĝo means a meal or an eating.Esperanto (according to the Fundamento) uses endocentric compounding, meaning the first part modifies the second part, like 'doghouse' in English. In this case, 'maten' is directed towards the focus of the compound- 'manĝ'. Since manĝ is inherently an action, the compound literally means "morning eating", instead of "morning meal", which would be 'matenmanĝaĵo'.
sudanglo:There have been cases where a shift in the clasification of a root has appeared. For example Lumi was the entry in the Fundamenta Universal Vortaro. But NPIV lists Lumo.It depends on which has a higher authority then- the Fundamento or the NPIV. That would dictate the core meaning.
This is fair enough. It may well be that changing the class of a root better accounts for its actual usage.
But what are we to say of, for example. 'Li forŝaltis la lumon' on the one hand and 'Li komentis pri la ne-lumon de la steloj en tiu nuba nokto' on the other hand.
Polaris (Profil anzeigen) 3. Dezember 2011 03:39:49
Chainy:@SudangloPersonally, I find the discussion fascinating, and I'm glad he put it up. As a relative new-comer to the more involved segment of "Esperantujo", I think that discussions that help people get acquainted with some of the intricacies of the language-things that aren't exactly the focus of basic courses-are a real benefit.
Again, why is this discussion taking place in the English-language forum? It would be much better to talk about this kind of thing in the Esperanto forum - you would get better responses and from a wider range of people.