У садржају
Одговорити

um = wildcard affix ?

од Bemused, 04. јануар 2012.

Поруке: 56

Језик: English

tommjames (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 11.29.36

RiotNrrd you seem to be arguing against a fundamental characteristic of the language. Nobody is saying you can never use a compound for a meaning other than one which it has acquired through usage or custom. At most I think sudanglo said it would take a strong contextual influence for it to be possible, and I think he's right there, given the fact that many compounds have relatively (emphasis on relatively) fixed meanings.

If it really bothers you so much that arbaro means forest, or akvumi means water, or brakumi means hug, or lernejano means pupil, then I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to terms with it somehow. That is how Esperanto works, plain and simple. And it isn't going to change just because "context is everything" or "someone may read PIV and misassume this is all the word can mean".

sudanglo (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 11.47.09

You can look at it from another angle, Riot.

Somehow or other Esperanto needs a word for a 'wood' (forest for Americans perhaps, though in British English we distinguish between a forest and a wood).

Now, if Esperanto had a word 'Vudo' for that concept then unless that happened to be recognizable from your mother tongue then that would impose a learning load.

My guess is that having learnt the suffix 'aro', any newbie would almost spontaneously suppose that an arbaro might be Esperanto's word for the idea of a wood. But, in any case, the learning load is lighter.

You are going to have to put in some learning for vocabulary. I can't see that as being avoidable.

However, when it comes to 'parol-turnoj' or idioms (fixed expressions) it seems quite sensible of Esperanto not to impose set phrases, but to allow any reasonable rendering to be acceptable.

This contrasts with the national languages, when you really have to know the preferred expression,

When you are learning French you have to learn that the French say 'Les yeux derrière la tête' - eyes behind ones head - for 'eyes in the back of ones head'.

But in Esperanto, it seems quite appropriate that 'havi okulojn kapdorse', 'havi kap-malantaŭe okulojn', 'havi 360-gradan vid-povon', or any other way of putting it, should be just a stylistic issue.
Also, weren't you (sudanglo) arguing AGAINST usage as a determinitive model, in another thread?
I reserve my right to hold several contradictory opinons before breakfast. Consistency is only for rigid minds.

sudanglo (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 12.19.29

According to NPIV, Erinja, kopso means coppice (ie the trees are managed with the growth regularly cut back), but I would imagine that it could get used in the sense of a little wood, or arbareto.

erinja (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 13.15.18

sudanglo:According to NPIV, Erinja, kopso means coppice (ie the tree are managed with the growth regularly cut back)
Thanks for the information. Couldn't find that word anywhere. Though unless I change careers to Esperanto landscaping, I don't expect I'll ever need the word!

RiotNrrd (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 17.10.18

tommjames:If it really bothers you so much that arbaro means forest, or akvumi means water, or brakumi means hug, or lernejano means pupil, then I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to terms with it somehow.
Please go back and re-read what I've written, as you seem to have gotten my point entirely backwards.

Here's some perspective: I don't object to "arbaro" meaning "forest", or "akvumi" meaning "to water". If you think that's what I'm saying, then you haven't read what I've written very carefully.

RiotNrrd (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 17.15.00

tommjames:Nobody is saying you can never use a compound for a meaning other than one which it has acquired through usage or custom.
Unless *I* am misunderstanding something, I believe sudanglo has been saying exactly that (i.e., that you cannot use "arbaro" to refer to a small collection of trees, because it has acquired the meaning of "forest" through usage and it now only means "forest"). My point has been that it is IS acceptable to use "arbaro" to refer to a small collection of trees because "arbaro" literally means "collection of trees", and since the word literally means that, it can be used to refer to what it literally means, independent of any usage-acquired meanings.

hebda999 (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 17.30.59

RiotNrrd:
tommjames:Nobody is saying you can never use a compound for a meaning other than one which it has acquired through usage or custom.
Unless *I* am misunderstanding something, I believe sudanglo has been saying exactly that (i.e., that you cannot use "arbaro" to refer to a small collection of trees, because it has acquired the meaning of "forest" through usage and it now only means "forest"). My point has been that it is IS acceptable to use "arbaro" to refer to a small collection of trees because "arbaro" literally means "collection of trees", and since the word literally means that, it can be used to refer to what it literally means, independent of any usage-acquired meanings.
You can always say "arbareto" or "aro da arboj", "kelkaj arboj", etc.

Kirilo81 (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 20.30.58

Linguistics strongly supports Sudanglo's opinion: Compounds are for reference, not for description. The difference to simple roots or derivatives is the greater amount of lexical material pointing towards the intended meaning, so they're a means to faciliate storing of lexical entries, but they nevertheless have to be learnt.

"lernejo" means "school", not more, not less, you have to learn that "school" is not *instruejo or (*)skolo; but encountering the word "lernejo" there's a better chance to remember that this word means "school", because the compound provides two pieces of information (while e.g. something like *lernumo would be less clear and *skulo could be totally obscure).
Esperanto word formation is easy because the rules of composition are clear and productive, but the coined words nevertheless are generally lexicalized like in other languages.

There is no language in the world where you could simple discompose lexicalized compounds. A washing machine / Waschmaschine / lavmasxino is the one special kind of machine we have in our households, you can not simply use the same word for another machine which does some kind of washing (e.g. a dish washer) without being misunderstood or achieving a comical effect.

If you want to express "aro da arboj" with a compound, you have to use "arbo-aro", "arbaro" is "wood/forest" (I have no idea what's the difference), nothing else.
An interpretation of all Esperanto compounds based only on the context would render the language quite useless for many purposes (e.g. legal texts, science...).

Just my two Eurocents. (And, just in case, if I sounded rude, that's just my imperfect mastering of English, I'm not used to use it actively).

erinja (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 21.03.37

Kirilo81:Just my two Eurocents.
Maybe you should have made this "two gold shavings" instead; seems like your Eurocents might not maintain much value into the near future! lango.gif

Miland (Погледати профил) 07. јануар 2012. 21.30.46

Butler has kopso = "copse, coppice". Wells2010 doesn't have it, using bosko. However I can see the sense of having a special word for something maintained artificially.

Вратите се горе