Повідомлення: 101
Мова: English
erinja (Переглянути профіль) 25 січня 2012 р. 19:16:07
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 00:13:48
I argue that not only does alies NOT break up the correlative table (whatever that means) but that ALSO the formation of this word finds parallels in other places in the language - not least in the construction of the very correlative table itself.
There are a whole host of words in Esperanto with components of indentifiable meaning where the component is not freely combinatorial in the usual manner of Esperanto roots (or the parsing may be of uncertain status). And yet this component may be productive in new word formation, even if not generalizable.
In short, pseudo-affixes are part of Esperanto.
And the coincidence of the 'o' in tio in meaning with the the 'o' in dom-o, produces no more problems than the coincidence of the 'al' in 'alies' with the 'al' in ali-a.
And if the 'o' in tio is identical with the 'o' in dom-o, rather than opportunistic, then 'ti' is a root and ti-e (en tiu maniero) is confusable with tie (en tiu loko).
Kirilo81 (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 09:10:13
sudanglo:So, you basically say that the difference between synchronic productive word formation and diachronic etymological analysis is neglectible. Shall I start using 'in-', 'ri-', '-acio', '-ala' etc. for coining new words, as there exist plenty of Esperanto words with these affixes?
There are a whole host of words in Esperanto with components of indentifiable meaning where the component is not freely combinatorial in the usual manner of Esperanto roots (or the parsing may be of uncertain status). And yet this component may be productive in new word formation, even if not generalizable.
In short, pseudo-affixes are part of Esperanto.
That not the way any language works, and in my opinion the distinction between diachrony and synchrony in Esperanto is even sharper than in ethnic languages.
Bemused (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 10:05:45
Kirilo81:"Prefixes and suffixes can also be used as stems, with an appropriate ending or endings." Wells p.XX
Shall I start using 'in-', 'ri-', '-acio', '-ala' etc. for coining new words, as there exist plenty of Esperanto words with these affixes?
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... it's a duck." My grandma.
So the answer to your question is yes.
You might be prepared to argue with the author of a respected dictionary, but NOBODY argues with their grandma.
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 13:32:33
So, you basically say that the difference between synchronic productive word formation and diachronic etymological analysis is neglectible.I have no idea if I am saying that. If you could re-word that in plain English I might judge if I agree.
However as to your conclusion, I would largely disagree.
In the case of 'in' meaning 'not', any Esperantist would use 'ne' should he require a compound with that meaning. In the case of 'ri' meaning 're', we also have a freely productive prefix.
However, where there is no Esperanto root with an equivalent meaning, new words may sometimes be formed by analogy - the affix may be considered not to have achieved full status for generalizable use but to have some productivity.
It is easier to see the point I am making with an example.
Compare kombilo with teleskopo. 'Il' is an established root, you can make any number of words with it (including il-o and il-a).
'Skop' is of limited generalizability - mikroskopo, spektroskopo, magnetoskopo, and some others which may be considered compounds - but you don't talk about skopoj or use 'skopi'. (At the same time endoskopo and makroskopa may have the status of root+finaĵo.)
It is pretty pointless arguing about whether teleskopo is tele-skop-o or teleskop-o, in the sense that it makes no difference to the language use.
Esperanto has always had pseudo affixes, and it is well understood that there are limits to the extent to which new words can be created with them. But they are potential sources of new words.
When Zamehof cautioned against 'ali-es' he was saying that -es isn't suffix like -il and that you shouldn't think that you can freely create mi-es or dom-es or any other such compound.
However he created kies, ties, ĉies etc (formation of roots by analogy), as he created kio, tio, ĉio by analogy with dom-o.
cFlat7 (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 14:09:32
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 26 січня 2012 р. 20:36:08
But I do suspect that some of the (by now) traditional accounts are incomplete and may not reflect comprehensively how Esperanto works.
I find it unsatisfactory that certain ideas may straitjacket discussions, to the point of declaring something as wrong in conflict with actual usage, or lead to seemingly unresolvable disputes.
I don't want problems at the periphery swept under the carpet. I want an Esperantology that properly describes the language, without elaborate complications.
Such a theoretical framework should give a clear answer as to whether teleregilo is a proper word, whether alies is valid, why korekta usually doesn't mean corrective, how televidi is supposed to be correct when nobody uses the verb, and why matenmanĝi is intransitive when manĝi isn't.
cFlat7 (Переглянути профіль) 27 січня 2012 р. 06:01:13
lgg (Переглянути профіль) 27 січня 2012 р. 06:45:50
What is true about people who oppose words like 'alies' under frivolous pretences, it's their hatred of Slavic languages, which have such words natively, manifesting in attempts to erase the Slavic influence pages from E-o history.
Miland (Переглянути профіль) 27 січня 2012 р. 12:24:52
He did see the need for stability and authority, and therefore, in the act of handing ownership of the language over to the community of users, he had their agreement to make the Fundamento virtually unreformable, and also set up the body that would become the Akademio.
For this reason arguments based on authority are important in determining correctness. Subsequent decisions by the Akademio are the best touchstones we have for correctness. Next come books on the language written by Akademianoj, albeit themselves subject to revision. These include our best grammars (e.g. Butler, PAG and most recently PMEG) or dictionaries (e.g. Butler, Wells, PIV).
Private opinions do not have such authority, though acceptance by users may make them accepted in the long term.
In particular, I have no problem with the verb televidi. After all, it is in Don Lord's book.
