Agreed, Tom. Many Esperanto compounds have a meaning which is more restricted than their components might suggest.

A 'lernejano' isn't a university student.

tommjames:Would you say the same about "vortaro"?

It's not a good counter-example, as I was referring explicitly to -um words, of which "vortaro" is not one.

But, sure, let's examine "vortaro".

Are you saying that "vortaro" cannot be used to refer to a word collection that does not comprise a dictionary?

I say it can. Yes, "dictionary" has become its primary meaning, but I don't take that to mean that it can't have any secondary ones. Other languages attribute multiple meanings to words and somehow manage to function, so I don't think component-derived secondary definitions are necessarily off the table in Esperanto. One-word/one-concept seems somewhat limiting, especially once we start combining multiple word-pieces.

In other words, if the context makes it clear what is referred to, I believe that "vortaro" can be legitimately used to refer to something that is not a dictionary. And that this idea extends to all other Esperanto words. A "lernejano" IS a university student, if the context makes that clear. It could also refer to an entire school, if we are talking about that school as a member of an organization of schools. Context is everything.

Words mean what their component parts indicate they mean, although we may give them additional meanings that aren't as obvious.

So, in the case of "vortaro", I would say that it refers to a dictionary first (for historical reasons), and then to any collection of words. Would I refer to a magazine as a "vortaro"? Well... there already is a word for magazine, so I'd probably use that. But if I was playing some kind of game in which individual words are stamped onto plastic pieces, I might refer to the set of pieces as a "vortaro". That would seem a completely logical and legitimate usage, even though the bag of pieces certainly is not a dictionary.

RiotNrrd:Are you saying that "vortaro" cannot be used to refer to a word collection that does not comprise a dictionary?

That's not what I'm saying, no.

RiotNrrd:I say it can.

I wouldn't disagree, at least if the context were clear enough. But it seems unreasonable to expect NPIV to reflect that in it's definition. Also, just because something isn't listed in the definition it doesn't mean it can't be used that way.

RiotNrrd:Yes, "dictionary" has become its primary meaning, but I don't take that to mean that it can't have any secondary ones.

Mi neither. But I don't think the definition in NPIV requires us to take it that way when they neglect to mention other possibilities which are, let's face it, largely theoretical.

The point was that you said the definition in NPIV is incomplete. I say it isn't, because they're not saying you can't use akvumi to mean something other than watering. If a dictionary were to list all the theoretical possibilities of such words then things would likely get quite ridiculous; you'd be appending things like "kaj eventuale iu ajn alia ago kiu rilatas al akvo" all over the place.

tommjames:
If a dictionary were to list all the theoretical possibilities of such words then things would likely get quite ridiculous;...

Could doesn't matter much at electronic dictionaries. Why people should not be capable to browse i.e. inside concept map views? There could be an simplyfied dictionary view like traditional (paper pdf print) ones and an extented view, which uses all possible computer database/technical techniques to show all possible relationships between word concepts known until now. I can't see any ridiculousness because of that. I.e. speech recognition systems already use that techniques to sort, algorithm and recognize human thinking concepts. And XML-techniques do lot at Internet data mining to realize sometime full featured Semantic Web idea. That means, that someones can interact to some machine and gets nearly that what (human) someones were looking for or had an slightly idea of. Its all about high powerful filter and sorting features. If someones prefer mainstream view that's fine. If someones prefer some more non-common innovation ones. That's fine, too. Personaly I prefer to keep my mind capable of innovation instead of let mainstream dictate my mind. I.e. like Facebook and Google does. That doesn't mean that I completely ignore mainstream information. I can't, because I have to survive. But for me, mainstream hypes are very boring.

This is just some rambling of mine. I wouldn't say I'm a highly reliable grammarian at all. I just find this conversation interesting.

I understand "um" as being very context-dependent. If you're going to "root+um" something, you're going to do whatever is obvious by the context of the situation. There are a few "um" words that have become somewhat static in their meaning, like "akvumi" and "brakumi"--but I believe that in context, even these meanings can change, though perhaps to a humorous effect.

"Vi ne volas brakumi, do anstataŭe ni povas krurumi."

What could this mean?

"You don't want to hug (really 'arm-thing'), so instead we can 'leg-thing'."

It's logical to come up with "leg-thing" in response to "arm-thing", yet since "krurumi" has no common meaning like "brakumi", it calls to attention the elements "brakumi" is composed of rather than calling attention to its static meaning as a hug/embrace. If a "brakumo" is a hug, is a "krurumo" a leg-hug? And if it's not, what on earth is it, and does "brakumo" still mean a hug in this scenario? You'd only be able to find out from the context or from what's going on in the mind of the speaker. Perhaps it's just wordplay, perhaps he means they should use their legs to walk away, maybe he wants to play footsie, or maybe he really does want them to wrap their legs around each other in an "embrace". You don't know without a further explanation by the speaker.

What if I asked you to "akvumi" my drink? If I asked you to "akvumi" the lawn or the garden, you'd understand immediately. But saying "Akvumu mian drinkaĵon" sounds like saying "Irrigate my drink", which seems ridiculous, yet if you look at what words you're using, it's really just "do something with water to the lawn" and "do something with water to my drink". "Akvumi drinkaĵon" could be the same as "Dilui drinkaĵon (per akvo)" = "To dilute a drink (with water)". A silly way to say it, but then people apparently like to say "maltrinki" for "to pee"--though really you could also say that to mean "to spit one's drink out". It's context.

To me, 'um' seems like an affix that would show up in rapid conversation (when one is groping for words) rather than in writing (when one has the opportunity to go back and eliminate unintended ambiguities). If that's the case, then the meaning of -um- would be highly variable and context dependant.

It seems an odd task to try to peg a precise meaning for an affix that is characterized by its imprecision. Here's a little poem by M.C. Butler, regarding -um-:

"Mi 'Umas' Vin"

Kiel la umo ĉirkaŭ via kolo,
Kiel la um' ĉe mano de virin',
Kiel aero umas en la ĉambro--
Mi umas vin.

Mi umas vin. La vorto ja konvenas,
Kaj ne ofendas eĉ al la edzin';
Ŝi ne riproĉos min, se mi nur diras
"Mi umas vin"!

My point was mainly that people often read a dictionary entry, and assume that it explains the COMPLETE meaning of the word. In English that's generally true. But in Esperanto it is not (especially in -um words, where context is even more important than in other types of words). It is not possible to enumerate all the possible meanings of -um words, but just because a dictionary listing doesn't contain a particular meaning doesn't mean the word itself can't mean that.

So, dictionary entries may mislead someone to think that a particular word does NOT mean something that it actually can, simply because that specific meaning is not listed in a dictionary somewhere. This is particularly likely in the case of -um words because -um is (technically) undefined.

So, if NPIV says "word X means Y", I'll accept it as true. BUT, I won't necessarily accept it as complete, and I certainly won't tell someone that their context-dependent use of "akvumi" (or whatever) is incorrect because it isn't listed in NPIV.

RiotNrrd:
My point was mainly that people often read a dictionary entry, and assume that it explains the COMPLETE meaning of the word. In English that's generally true.

Hhm. Are you sure? Misinterpreting also could to be base for (creative) new interpreting. That could be base of (philosophical) questioning. Furthermore (offending) misinterpretation could be core motivation to evaluate something.

Hhm. That's NOT intented to be some blaming of English language. But according to your statements English I understand it this way, that English language is very well prepared for scientific field (hard fact sciences) which need high precise questioning and excact definitions of word concepts. But for soft non-strong-evidience(?) sciences like philosophical field that narrowing could hinder creativity(?).

Hhm. Anyway, I like sound of English language. That was and is my main motivation to learn English language.

RiotNrrd:
So, if NPIV says "word X means Y", I'll accept it as true. BUT, I won't necessarily accept it as complete, and I certainly won't tell someone that their context-dependent use of "akvumi" (or whatever) is incorrect because it isn't listed in NPIV.

We are all students. We are all teachers. Ĉu ne?

Including NPIV, PMEG (Bertilo will not get that offending. Ask him if you don't believe!), ReVo etc.

qwertz:Hhm. Are you sure?

Well, of course we (mostly) have abridged English dictionaries. Not every entry in every dictionary is going to be authoritatively complete.

But generally, people act as if they are.

If you say a word, and someone disagrees with your usage, the dictionary is usually the next step. And if the dictionary entry doesn't give the usage you tried, it will often be seen as evidence that your usage is wrong.

Applying this attitude to Esperanto is, I think, a mistake.

RiotNrrd:

qwertz:Hhm. Are you sure?

If you say a word, and someone disagrees with your usage, the dictionary is usually the next step. And if the dictionary entry doesn't give the usage you tried, it will often be seen as evidence that your usage is wrong.

Oh, diable. Does it concern conservative or religious-orthodox folks only? Could there be another explanation of such behaviour? Means people who only believe to written "frozen beliefs" contrary to how Freidenker act?

RiotNrrd:
Applying this attitude to Esperanto is, I think, a mistake.

Definitly. I don't take efforts to learn some language like Esperanto, which offers creativity but their community later try to hard glue my mind due to "frozen beliefs". Never! That's why I like lyrics of LPG i.e. La pasinta generacio or Malantaŭen very much. That are my Esperanto svarm community folks. And not some of narrow-minded "Movement" folks.

Ah, and then we come to the preposition "je"! If one does not know the "correct" or "fitting" preposition, oni povas jeumi!