Meldinger: 56
Språk: English
erinja (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 6 23:32:34
"Kopso" I would assume to be a small group of trees, based on the English "copse", but I've never once seen it used in Esperanto, nor is it found in the couple of dictionaries I checked, so I really have no good idea about how to define it.
RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 00:16:01
As mentioned before, "arbaro" literally means "collection of trees". That it is now understood across the board as "forest"[1] makes it into an idiom. The word now means something other than what its parts say it should.
Now, idioms are a problem, but it strikes me that it is an even bigger problem if we then say that not only do we favor the idiom over the literal interpretation, but we are now restricting the meaning to ONLY the idiom. You want to use a particular word to express exactly what that words parts say it can express? Sorry, THAT word already means something else. Try again.
For some reason, that doesn't seem like a very good idea for an easy-to-learn international language. Sprinkling it with a bunch of one-word idioms? C'mon. That's just setting traps for beginners and increasing the difficulty of the language for no great benefit.
Also, weren't you (sudanglo) arguing AGAINST usage as a determinitive model, in another thread? I may be mistaken, though.
----------
[1] At least in my part of the US, "forest" is favored significantly over "woods". We'll still say "woods" now and then, but "forest" is what we usually call those big things that seem to catch fire every summer.
EldanarLambetur (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 00:49:02
Perhaps a parallel in English would be "blackberry" versus "black berry". There is a difference in stress between pronouncing these, so they are distinct. We'd use "blackberry" to refer to a particular type of berry which has been named thusly due to its colour. But a "black berry" is any berry that happens to be black.
Don't you lose the distinctness and usefulness of compounds if they mean exactly the literal translation of their components?
"Arbaro" from "arbo + aro" should be a new concept, its chief characteristic being that it is a collection of trees.
If "kunlabori" was just like "work with" (rather than "collaborate") then perhaps we wouldn't say "X kunlaboras kun Y".
Perhaps the closest alternative (least changes from "arbaro"), talking about any old collection, would be "arba aro" (like blackberry versus black berry).
It doesn't seem like this is fossilisation of meaning. Compounding seems like it should make a statement.
Saying "ŝin mi mortigis" is not the norm for word order, so to me it feels like I'm emphasising "ŝin" as if I'm saying that I killed her as opposed to anyone else.
Feels like compounding should be similar. I'm not saying just "a collection of trees", I'm making a point of compounding these words to produce something that is defined by being a collection of trees. So why would you make this statement, if you intend only to refer to a few trees?
RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 00:57:54
EldanarLambetur:Wouldn't there be little point (except perhaps in poetry) in having a rich word-building system, if the result of which was simply a literal interpretation of its building blocks?If that's all it was, then sure. But I'm not saying that words should be restricted to only what the words parts suggest. I'm complaining about restricting words meanings to something OTHER than what their parts suggest.
I don't object to "arbaro" meaning "forest". I'm objecting to not being able to use it to also refer to a collection of trees, when the context makes clear that I don't mean "forest". The word literally MEANS "collection of trees". Not being able to use it to refer to a collection of trees seems silly.
EldanarLambetur (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 01:24:55
RiotNrrd:This seems like saying, why can't you use "blackberry" to refer to any berry that is black?
I don't object to "arbaro" meaning "forest". I'm objecting to not being able to use it to also refer to a collection of trees, when the context makes clear that I don't mean "forest". The word literally MEANS "collection of trees". Not being able to use it to refer to a collection of trees seems silly.
If everyone often used "arbaro" as literally meaning "collection of trees" instead of a new concrete concept defined by the meaning "collection of trees", then slowly we'd lose the useful distinction between "aro da arboj / arba aro" and "arbaro".
In the same way that if we always used "la lago estas blua" interchangeably with "la lago bluas", then there'd be no interesting nuance between them (article by Claude Piron)
I'm sure you'd be understood, in the same way I'd understand what was being said if someone called a berry a blackberry that wasn't one. I'm just giving a theoretical reason why one might stick to "aro da arboj" or suchlike instead. Perhaps in literature, or when being careful with what you say.
RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 02:16:30
Part of the up-sell of Esperanto is that it establishes patterns, and that once you learn a pattern it can be applied everywhere, and that there are no exceptions to these patterns.
The "collection of" pattern is (roughly) [root]+ar+o = a collection of the root.
Except, apparently, in the cases of "vortaro" and "arbaro", which do not follow this pattern.
kataro = collection of cats
ŝtonaro = collection of stones
buŝaro = collection of mouths (odd, perhaps, but still legitimate)
arbaro = forest, but NOT a collection of trees
vortaro = dictionary, but NOT a collection of words
So, now that I know there are random (i.e., unpredictable) exceptions to this pattern, if I want to talk about a new "collection of" some object, I cannot confidently use [root]+ar+o to express that idea, because someone, somewhere, may have decided that using the particular root I want to use means something different than the pattern implies, and there is no way to know by looking at the word if that is true or not. In order to be sure, I will need to consult a dictionary first. Just like I'd have to do in English, and for the very same reasons. Exceptions to a pattern mean the pattern isn't really a pattern. It's just "sort of" a pattern, but you can't count on it.
This isn't "rich word-building". This is just arbitrarily assigning meanings to sounds based on some consensus usage. Granted, it is within a limited sphere. But these exceptions do not make the language stronger - they make it weaker.
EldanarLambetur (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 02:32:55
"aro da katoj" versus "kataro" is like "collection of cats" versus "clowder" (wiki) in English perhaps?
It just so happens that sometimes there isn't a distinct single word concept in English for a compound word in Esperanto. In such cases it is often prudent to just translate the components perhaps? Whereas ideally, a compound word should be a concept in its own right, logically arising from the meaning of the components.
But I do get where you're coming from.
RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 02:41:19
EldanarLambetur:This seems like saying, why can't you use "blackberry" to refer to any berry that is black?It's not quite the same thing. "Blackberry" is actually the name of a type of berry, rather than a term describing it. Since it's a name, applying it to a black colored berry that is not a blackberry (i.e., a berry with a different name) would be incorrect. Only blackberries get to be called blackberries.
The Esperanto words we are talking about are not names. They're just nouns.
Chainy (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 02:54:58
) RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2012 1 7 03:59:43
Chainy:Can't we just go with the flow, rather than obsess over every detail?If that's where you're at, go for it.
I, on the other hand, think we're having an interesting discussion, and I see no reason to end it. If you don't like the details, feel free to ignore them.