Mesaĝoj: 115
Lingvo: English
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-12 21:02:12
Because I see the criticism of these forms as being based on false reasoning - as nicely stated by Erinja ... most people who use them see them as simply combining ali- with the correlatives table.
This, of course, is wrong.
By the way, how many times have you used the Tekstaro to validate an opinion as to the correctness of a word. or structure?
Well, here, the Tekstaro validates these forms in spades.
And Erinaj, declaring Patriĉ and Fratiĉ to be new roots doesn't work to make iĉ a suffix.
If those words are roots then logically the 'iĉ' in them is not a suffix.
The roots of administraci-o and arbitraci-o do not make -aci a freely usable suffix, though both 'administr' and 'arbitr' are roots.
In the same way using alies doesn't create a generalisable suffix 'es'.
It could theoretically become one at some time if the speakers so chose.
This also would not violate the correlative table since, as I have previously pointed out Nenio can be seen as not a root, but neni+o.
However this doesn't make nenies any less a root.
If the argument that alies creates a suffix were valid then it would also be true that nenies creates suffix.
Assuming that alies is ali+es is the same as assuming that nenies is neni+es.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 10:57:02
sudanglo:..the Tekstaro validates these forms in spades.This is misleading for at least two reasons. First, the tekstaro is a good indication of usage, but not always correct usage. Secondly, alies does not appear in Zamenhof or the early classics, though aliel can be found in Metropoliteno and one or two others works.
The precedent of such new correlatives, to follow Portia, would set a precedent, and many an error following the same bad example would follow, like iĉ, to which my reaction is "Iĉ!".
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 12:56:33
Do you use the suffix -end? That also apppears to be missing from the Zamehofian Tekstaro
And of course many other common roots in Esperanto are post Zamenhof.
Miland, you either refuse to, or simply don't, understand the argument.
If the use of alies opened the floodgates for patriĉ, you would expect to find patriĉ in the Tekstaro. You don't, so what's your problem. By the way, I still don't know what patriĉ is supposed to mean.
Do you use nenie as the adverb from neni? Of course you don't. Because nenie (root) has pre-empted the slot.
In a similar fashion alies doesn't lead to alie (correlative meaning ali-loke) because of the pre-emption by the adverb.
Do you reject raketo (rocket) because of raketo (little rack)?
TatuLe (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 16:51:19
Because of its form, alies looks like it's somehow regularly formed from the root ali'. That would lead the beginner to think that -es is a suffix, even if you say it isn't. And if alies was included in Esperanto courses, you would always need an accompanying explanation of why the use of alies doesn't necessarily make aliu, aliam, aliom and alial correct, and why alie and aliel can be synonymous, when alie should mean "aliloke", according to the rules of the correlatives.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 20:08:51
sudanglo:If the use of alies opened the floodgates for patriĉ, you would expect to find patriĉ in the Tekstaro. You don't..That shows only that the rot has not yet set in - good! Let's keep it that way, by refusing wrong-headed innovations like additional correlatives. "What's your problem?" is a question for people not content with the language as it is, and who insist on advocating "improvements" to it. Whether such proposals come from young people or old, they are a pain in the *CENSORED*.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 21:14:39
I say 'problem' because the various forms of the classic correlative table are presented tabularly, implying a certain consistency, and limits on membership, and similar importance and status.
But this consistency is an illusion, Ĉio is a root. You can't derive ĉi words, ĉi is the proximity particle. However nenio is a compound
and you can derive neni-words.If you look at the statistics of usage there is only a small percentage of the table words that are frequently used and that the beginner needs to know.
In a beginners course it would suffice just to teach them without any reference to a table.
If the tradition hadn't existed of tabular presentation, you would just learn the words as you needed them and alies and aliel when encountered you would think quite ordinary.
Learned this way, there would be nothing odd about alie being a normal adverb.
Why does nobody notice that there is something odd about nenie not being a normal adverb?
As to whether alie is really a synonym for aliel, I suspect that in practice there is some distinction.
Why do people say alimaniere? What's the point of that?
In Esperanto adverbs sometime do mean place. Hejme would be a good example.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 22:14:40
sudanglo:As to whether alie is really a synonym for aliel, I suspect that in practice there is some distinction.They say "alimaniere" because "aliel" is wrong, obviously!
Why do people say alimaniere? What's the point of that?
But more seriously, I think that alie has a somewhat broader meaning than "alimaniere". However the meanings are very similar and in practice it doesn't matter that much whether you use them interchangeably.
----
I find it very out of character for you, sudanglo, to support words such as alies, which Zamenhof expressly stated to be wrong, in his Lingvaj Respondoj. It strikes me as so unusual that a traditionally-minded person such as yourself would want to use that form, when Zamenhof himself was so clear about calling it incorrect. He didn't even simply suggest not to do it (as he does in other answers), he calls it against the rules.
Bemused (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-13 22:37:54
sudanglo:At risk of upsetting people far more knowledgeable about the language than myself, I would reject raketo for rocket because it has the potential of being confused for little rack.
Do you reject raketo (rocket) because of raketo (little rack)?
I would have the same objection to any other words that create potential confusion.
Why introduce potential confusion when another non-confusing word could be created or introduced?
Why make an easy language less easy by creating potential misunderstanding?
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-14 00:02:35
Bemused:I would reject raketo for rocket because it has the potential of being confused for little rack.The contexts for talking about little racks versus rockets are quite different, therefore there is little chance of confusion. I don't frequently speak of little racks, do you? And if someone wished to be absolutely clear, they could certainly say "malgranda rako" or "eta rako" and avoid the use of the "raketo" form.
However, Zamenhof actively avoided these double forms when creating Esperanto's vocabulary, but in some cases he was unable to use the most international word for a concept without creating a double form. In most cases he was able to change a letter or so, to avoid the possibility of such a form (therefore we have "bankedo" for banquet, rather than "banketo"). But it wasn't possible for every case.
These double-meaning words are sometimes used in Esperanto jokes. "Why is a giraffe never alone? Because he has a colleague / a big neck!"
("Kial ĝirafo neniam estas sola? Ĉar li havas kolegon!" - koleg/o or kol/eg/o)
TatuLe (Montri la profilon) 2012-januaro-14 04:26:36
sudanglo:Getting rid of the tabular presentation would make the correlatives much harder to learn. Not allowed to use the table, we would have to explain the meanings of ki-, ti-, i-, ĉi-, neni- and the correlative endings in some other, more confusing way. And I think it would be hard to explain why "tio", for example, is not ti+o but a root, if it couldn't be presented as a word belonging to a closed system with special rules. More people would also think it's odd that 'nenie' isn't a normal adverb, but restricted to the meaning "nowhere".
In a beginners course it would suffice just to teach them without any reference to a table.
You've already pointed out the inconsistency with ĉio being a root and neni+o being a compound. However I find that much less confusing than having to learn the correlatives without the table, and without them being referred to as a closed system.