讯息： 101
语言: English
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日上午12:12:38
It doesn't have that mechanism, which you do see in other languages
But Esperanto does have words in which a part of a root has an identifiable meaning that it shares in its occurrence with other words, and whilst that morpheme is not generally and independently usable as a component in word building (as though it were a root) there really is no attack on the system when some new roots emerge (like alies) which contain the bound morpheme.
This may facilitate the learning and quick comprehension of such roots
When Zamenhof created the table words, he was creating words using this method. And in creating rule 15 he guaranteed that new words with bound morphemes would enter the language.
You may tell your students that alies is wrong, Erinja. But without any theoretical basis you have no effective rebuttal for the student who later finds it in general use, except to say that you don't personally like the word.
When Prezidento entered the language presenting a distinction with prezidanto comparable to the distinction between student and studanto, what linguistic mechanism was involved, if not that which lead to the creation of alies.
erinja (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日上午1:08:44
If a student asks me about it, I need only say "This form is wrong because Zamenhof said so in his 'Lingvaj respondoj'."
It's you who has the difficult task - you must explain to your theoretical students why alies isn't alies, and why we should disregard Zamenhof when he said that "alies" is against the rules. I wonder if you also reject forms like "kelkom", or if you believe that "kelkom" is permitted so long as "kelkom isn't kelkom".
It depends on the meaning of 'is', doesn't it?
lgg (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日上午2:11:31
erinja:If a student asks me about it, I need only say "This form is wrong because Zamenhof said so in his 'Lingvaj respondoj'Since Zamenhoff himself waivered his rights to his language, it's unreasonable to consider his opinion having more value than contradicting opinion of group of multiple people who use forms like 'alies'.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午1:03:47
Zamenhof is telling us how to parse the table words. They are roots, not compounds.
But he is vague when it comes to the -o and -a roots. If the o in tio was really the substantive finaĵo that would make ti a root.
Rather we have a coincidence of form and meaning with a part of a root - and in the same way a coincidence occurs in the first part of alies.
Zamenhof does not prohibit a new root by analogy. He does prohibit -es as a general suffix.
Why do you suggest I might want to say Kelkom? Kelk-iom already exists as a valid compound - 2 hits in the Tekstaro.
Have you ever used the word Esperantologo formed by analogy with geologo, ekologo, psikologo and other root words ending in -ologo for persons?
Then you have used a word formed by analogy.
The fact is that competent Esperantists use alies, and I prefer an account that makes such usage intelligble rather than labelling it as incorrect.
As I also prefer a theory of native grammatical class and word formation that makes 'korekta' correct (not corrective) - in accordance with actual usage.
Miland (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午2:02:18
sudanglo:I prefer..The evolution of the language does not rely only on individual preferences; convincing the community of users as a whole is also necessary. Given that Zamenhof condemned alies explicitly, even if he handed over ownership to the users in 1905 (not without setting up the body that would become the Akademio, it should be added), I imagine that convincing users about it will not be easy. Especially since the most authoritative recent grammars of Esperanto that we have, written by members of the Akademio just mentioned, and this website's official texts, make clear their disapproval of such forms.
So people who advocate alies in my view could end up being regarded as cranks similar to ri-ists or iĉists.
Kirilo81 (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午2:24:37
sudanglo:Again, "esperantologo" is an internationalism, or let's say, it's build within in the greek-latin metalanguage of science and borrowed into E-o as a whole. I think no one would accept *birdologo or *hundologo, so it is for sure "esperantolog/o", not "esperant/o/log/o".
Have you ever used the word Esperantologo formed by analogy with geologo, ekologo, psikologo and other root words ending in -ologo for persons?
Then you have used a word formed by analogy.
But you're mentioning a real, yet underestimated problem of the E-o word formation: Esperanto has just two ways to coin new words: 1.) Borrow them as roots (§15 Fundamenta Gramatiko) and 2.) combine them in compounds (§11 FG and the examples from the Ekzercaro). That's it.
But there are words, even popular ones, which are formed analogically after word formation processes of ethnolanguages, like "tele/reg/il/o", "mikro/ond/il/o" or "meta/lingv/o". In my opinion these words are incorrect and should not be used, unless you can motivate them as internationalisms (so e.g. "metalingv/o" or "infraruĝ/a" ).
One should not underestimate that the intrusion of a foreign word formation process puts the stability of the language at risk (in my opinion that kind of change would be comparable with the introduction of a new case), even more because it's happening unconsciously (even Zamenhof once used "pseŭdolaboro"!).
FreeXenon (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午8:05:37
I find this discussion fascinating and would be very sad to know that I could be missing out on threads like this if all technical discussions were relegated to the Esperanto language forums. =)
After all, I thought the English-language forum was meant for helping beginners, rather than a place for experienced speakers of Esperanto to bicker over grammar!
Chainy (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午8:29:11
FreeXenon:Actually, this discussion is even more useful for someone like me who could not come close to following a technical discussion like this in Esperanto.I'm not quite sure how this discussion might be useful for a beginner. It would be much more useful to learn the traditionally accepted form of 'de iu alia' and then with the time saved learn a whole stack of other words!
I've no idea why certain experienced Esperanto speakers are so determined to have these discussions here in this English forum, when they could easily talk about it in Esperanto. These random musings and disputes about this and that only lead to confusion, rather than provide any real help to learners. And this English forum is supposedly meant to help beginners!
Chainy (显示个人资料) 2012年1月16日下午8:31:36
tommjames:On the alies theme, I just read an essay by Ken Miner, where he discusses the pros and cons of that construction in comparison to Bertilo Wennergren's suggested alternative aliula. Perhaps some readers will find it interesting/informative.That was actually very interesting. I'm sure Sudanglo will want to talk about it - but how about doing so in Esperanto?