Сообщений: 115
Язык: English
sudanglo (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 13:25:49
Studento - regento - prezidento - dirigento.
There are a whole mass of similarly ending words in Esperanto whose endings are bound (not true sufiksoj or radikoj), in precisely the same way as the endings of words in members of the correlative table.
Sometimes the ending may escape, or have the potential to escape, or its status become uncertain. Is parkometro (parking meter) compounded or is -metro now free.
Which is now the best form - altimetro or altometro, for altimeter?
Occasionally uncertainty can develop. Is the Zamenhofian 'Gasometro' (gasometer for storage), or is it now a gas meter?
By the way, is there on the net, a site for looking up words in Esperanto that end in common way - like all the words that end in '-acio' or '-oro'?
darkweasel (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 13:29:28
sudanglo:I guess you can use Rata Vortaro at least for "-oro".
By the way, is there on the net, a site for looking up words in Esperanto that end in common way - like all the words that end in '-acio' or '-oro'?
sudanglo (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 13:54:07
To look up -acio, you have to look up 'i'.
erinja (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 16:09:29
sudanglo:However his argument that 'alies' (and any similarly constructed form) is kontraŭ-regula only works if you suppose 'alies' to be a compound rather than a new root.Wow. That's interesting reasoning. If we say that a form like "aliel" is not a misuse of the correlatives table, but instead a new root, then it seems to open the door to a lot of similar reasoning, using "oh, it's a new root" to justify all kinds of misleading changes:
"When I use the word *patriĉo, certainly it's not because I support redefining the word "patro" and using the -iĉ- ending; how could you think such a thing! Naturally, patriĉ/ is a new root. Not to mention the other new roots I'm adding, fratiĉ/, filiĉ/, onkliĉ/, reĝiĉ/, etc. It isn't a language reform, it's new vocabulary!"
sudanglo (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 18:38:08
They are listed as such NPIV. And this analysis is preferred precisely because if you treated them as compounds, you would have effectively validated as new suffixes 'es' and 'el'.
The appropriate test for a suffix is, can you tack it freely onto many roots, and can you use it with a finaĵo.
You can't in this case, so alies, aliel are roots, and the second part of these words are bound morphemes in the same way as in tiel, kiel.
Obviously, you can't get away with arguing that patriĉo AND an indeterminate number of roots plus iĉo are all new roots to justify using 'iĉo' as a new suffix (I have forgotten what it is supposed to mean.)
As I said before, the whole basis for any criticism of alies aliel etc rests on a false analysis, that these are compounds.
darkweasel (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 18:48:37
sudanglo:They obviously aren’t.
As I said before, the whole basis for any criticism of alies aliel etc rests on a false analysis, that these are compounds.
However, the category of roots that don’t need an ending (vortetoj according to PMEG terminology) is relatively closed in Esperanto. Has even one such root (except maybe for nul) been added (= widely accepted, perhaps even official) to Esperanto since 1905?
erinja (Показать профиль) 11 января 2012 г., 19:52:13
sudanglo:Obviously, you can't get away with arguing that patriĉo AND an indeterminate number of roots plus iĉo are all new roots to justify using 'iĉo' as a new suffixI'm not talking about making a new suffix -iĉ-. I'm talking about adding new o-words, which is well-established in Esperanto. Surely "televido" didn't exist in Zamenhof's day, but it's a perfectly good Esperanto word.
It's totally within precedent to add new roots like patriĉ/o, onkliĉ/o, reĝiĉ/o, filiĉ/o, etc. as synonyms for our current words patro, onklo, reĝo, filo, etc.
Right?
Just like your new root aliel (according to you, a new root that doesn't break up the correlative system or make ali- a new correlative prefix), I'm not talking about making changes to Esperanto's core grammar. I'm just adding some new root words. It's purely coincidental that my new roots patriĉ/, filiĉ/, etc happen to end in a similar way to a new suffix that some people want to add. I'm talking about new roots, not new suffixes or changes to Esperanto's gender system. My roots don't change the core grammar, they're just new roots for the language. Exactly like your word aliel.
...you believe me, right?
----
O-words are easy to add to the language. But as darkweasel correctly noted, it's rare to add 'vortetoj' to the language. And I think that adding a word like aliel would open the door for proposals like the facetious one I wrote above.
sudanglo (Показать профиль) 12 января 2012 г., 13:27:36
But as darkweasel correctly noted, it's rare to add 'vortetoj' to the language. And I think that adding a word like aliel would open the door for proposals like the facetious one I wrote above.I clearly don't think so, Erinja.
On the wider point of additions of words that don't require a termination, That seems to me to be part of Esperanto's natural evolution. If they prove useful, fine, - if they present unnecessary duplication, then no.
I see 'alies' as really useful. And, by the way, I got some 40 hits in the Tekstaro - for 'aliel' 35 hits. 'Far' also gets 35 hits.
Patriĉo gets none.
Need I say more?
Miland (Показать профиль) 12 января 2012 г., 17:26:19
sudanglo:Need I say more?Yes - that you sincerely repent of approving such perversions and promise not to do it again.
erinja (Показать профиль) 12 января 2012 г., 18:56:17
sudanglo:I see 'alies' as really useful. And, by the way, I got some 40 hits in the Tekstaro - for 'aliel' 35 hits. 'Far' also gets 35 hits.If you have both "alies" and "aliel", a reasonable person would see you has breaking into the correlatives table and adding a new correlative prefix ali-, just as you would rightly see me as adding an -iĉ- suffix if I added new words "patriĉo" and "fratiĉo" and claimed they were new roots.
Patriĉo gets none.
Need I say more?
You may personally see alies and aliel as new roots but I think that most people who use them see them as simply combining ali- with the correlatives table.
People can do what they want and call it what they want but if one of my students used a word like *alies or *aliel, I would mark it wrong and I'd tell them why.
Maybe Esperantists a hundred years from now will feel differently but to me, today, it's just flat out wrong.