Příspěvky: 56
Jazyk: English
qwertz (Ukázat profil) 5. ledna 2012 22:17:47
robbkvasnak:Ah, and then we come to the preposition "je"! If one does not know the "correct" or "fitting" preposition, oni povas jeumi!Yes, good chance to start some malkateniga ridado kune at this situation.
whysea (Ukázat profil) 5. ledna 2012 22:36:17
robbkvasnak:Ah, and then we come to the preposition "je"! If one does not know the "correct" or "fitting" preposition, oni povas jeumi!Ĉu oni povas jeumi je la umo?
sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 5. ledna 2012 22:51:39
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.This is not quite Humpty Dumpty's philosophy (a word means what I say it means) but it comes pretty close.
It isn't just context which determines the restriction or wider application of a word, but also the lexical resources of the language - ie. the other words in the language.
If there is a word for student in the language and you try to use lernejano to mean student rather than pupil, you will naturally be misunderstood because your interlocutor will assume that you would have used the word for student, if that was what you meant.
You illustrate this point, Riot, when you admit that vortaro wouldn't refer to a magazine, because Esperanto has a word for a magazine.
Additionally, if usage has sanctioned a specific restricted meaning of a compound, then it would take a very strong contextual influence to force the word into new territory.
These considerations seem to me to apply to um-words in much the same way as they apply to other compounds.
However when an novel um-word is created, or a novel compound word of any sort, then the situation could be somewhat different.
What this novel word means will to some extent derive from context, as well as from the standard patterns of word formation.
The extent to which its meaning is specific, clear from its components and useful, however, will determine its chance of widespread adoption, and with established usage its meaning may become more limited than the potential meanings from its components.
[Incidentally, to express the idea of a school being a member of a group of schools you would have to say lernejarano].
qwertz (Ukázat profil) 5. ledna 2012 22:53:05
whysea:Of course/Nature.robbkvasnak:Ah, and then we come to the preposition "je"! If one does not know the "correct" or "fitting" preposition, oni povas jeumi!Ĉu oni povas jeumi je la umo?
sudanglo:Pffff. Rilaksig*umu*.
It isn't just context which determines the restriction or wider application of a word, but also the lexical resources of the language - ie. the other words in the language.
RiotNrrd (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 0:04:40
sudanglo:This is not quite Humpty Dumpty's philosophy (a word means what I say it means) but it comes pretty close.Nonsense. All I am saying is that the meaning of an Esperanto word should take its components into account, rather than us just deciding that one and only one interpretation is possible, and then insisting that any other usage is wrong, even though those usages are logical and violate no rules.
sudanglo:If there is a word for student in the language and you try to use lernejano to mean student rather than pupil, you will naturally be misunderstood because your interlocutor will assume that you would have used the word for student, if that was what you meant.I ought to remind you that you are talking to an American, for whom "student" and "pupil" are essentially synonymous.
sudanglo:You illustrate this point, Riot, when you admit that vortaro wouldn't refer to a magazine, because Esperanto has a word for a magazine.You are mis-characterizing what I wrote. I would likely use "revuo" (or "gazeto") for "magazine" because it's more specific than "vortaro". But I would still consider a magazine to BE a vortaro, and, in the right circumstances, certainly could refer to a magazine that way. In general speech, however, I would tend to use the more narrowly defined term.
Bemused (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 9:09:07
So what would "mi ridi kaj umi" translate to English as?
Cheers.
sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 11:28:41
I am saying .. that the meaning of an Esperanto word should take its components into accountAgreed. A compound Esperanto word whose meaning is not fairly transparent or deducible from its components is not a good word for Esperanto.
But you can't then make the leap to supposing that any compound word must be serviceable for any meaning which might be encompassed by its components.
You have to take established usage into account.
An 'arbaro' is not any old clumping of trees, but a wood.
'Kolumo' is a collar, not a necklace.
erinja (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 14:35:55
sudanglo:An 'arbaro' is not any old clumping of trees, but a wood.-um- is a different case. But if someone were giving me directions, and telling me that something could be found "behind that clump of trees over there", I think "arbaro" would be fine. In context, it would be understood that they meant a group of trees, not a forest. I think this is RiotNrrd's point. "Arbaro" out of context means "forest", no question. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it would mean "a group of trees" in another context.
'Kolumo' is a collar, not a necklace.
"arbareto", if you wanted to emphasize that it wasn't a huge forest.
RiotNrrd (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 17:07:04
erinja:-um- is a different case. But if someone were giving me directions, and telling me that something could be found "behind that clump of trees over there", I think "arbaro" would be fine. In context, it would be understood that they meant a group of trees, not a forest. I think this is RiotNrrd's point. "Arbaro" out of context means "forest", no question. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it would mean "a group of trees" in another context.Basically, that's what I'm saying.
The other part of my point being that just because a dictionary entry doesn't cover a particular usage, that does not mean that that usage is not allowed. This is more applicable to -um words than others because of -um's undefined nature, but still applicable language-wide to some degree.
If a word literally translates to some meaning, but people more often use the word to mean something else (less literal), that does not mean that the word loses its literal meaning. It just means that the literal meaning may be considered secondary. In the right context, however, the word may still be used to express what it literally means.
In erinja's "arbaro" example, the word is being used to refer to a clump of trees rather than a forest, and this is an acceptable usage because it is literally true. "Arbaro" literally means "a collection of trees", with no indication of size. The fact that it has acquired a primary meaning of "forest" does not mean its more literal (and now secondary) meaning is invalid and cannot be used. As erinja shows, it can be legitimately used to indicate something which is not a forest, as long as the context is clear.
Of course, in the case of -um words (which is what this thread is about; not about -ar words, however much they keep popping up), they cannot have a literal translation since -um is, by definition, undefined.
sudanglo (Ukázat profil) 6. ledna 2012 22:37:33
It seems to me unquestionable that usage has fossilized the meanings of many common compounds in Esperanto.
There are plenty of ways of referring to a small group of trees, la arboj tie, grupo da arboj, aro da arboj, linio de arboj, bosko, and kopso, so little is lost by the limitation of arbaro to 'wood' (perhaps forest in American) and something is gained by this 'precizigo'.
If arbaro really can be any old group of trees, then the question how many trees do you need to make an arbaro - is 5 enough - would make sense. But I don't think many would agree.
Furthemore the question which is bigger a bosko or an arbaro, couldn't be asked. Yet most people would see a bosko as considerably smaller.
I take your point that meanings can be stretched through context, but there are limits to that.
Turning to 'um' now, both 'um' and 'je' have theoretically undefined meanings, but in practice there are certain limitations on their use, which have also developed through usage.