Съобщения: 101
Език: English
Chainy (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 08:18:02
Oficiala difino:
televid/i = vidi per televizio
Chainy (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 08:28:21
sudanglo:What does the following sentence mean la matĉo inter Francujo kaj Bulgarujo estis hieraŭ televidata? Was the match televised or viewed?'televidata' can't mean televised in that sentence, at least not according to the generally accepted meaning of 'televidi'.
I think you'd have to say either:
1. "Oni montris/elsendis la matĉon per televido."
2. "Oni televidigis la matĉon".
Personally, I'd probably go for version one. And I wouldn't put the second version into the passive 'estis televidigita', as that sounds a bit odd and it's quite a mouthful!
Chainy (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 08:44:10
PMEG seems to support the idea that 'televidi' should actually not be seen as a root in itself, but rather a word consisting of the prefix 'tele-', followed by the verb 'vidi'.
Bit of a muddle at the moment, then. Seems someone will have to sort this one out at some stage.
And I wonder what is the point of 'televizi/', if 'tele/vid/' (or 'televid/') seems to cover all the necessary meanings?
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 10:18:47
And I wonder what is the point of 'televizi/', if 'tele/vid/' (or 'televid/') seems to cover all the necessary meanings?I've just noticed that NPIV defines televizio as televido.
As to why we have a duplicate here, I think the explanation must be something like this.
Television is clearly an international word, therefore under rule 15 you might expect the form televizio in Esperanto.
However the Esperantists often prefer a more home-grown form (cf the history of computilo versus komputoro and komputero) and then the natural form is 'televido'.
Televizio may have been a pure lexicographer's invention motivated by a concern to avoid perceived problems with televid as a compound - or indeed problems with televid as a root, of the type imagined by those who oppose alies as a new root.
But this is a grammarians/theorists perception. And such a standpoint leads to the concept of televidi having to be the origin of televido. But this does not match usage.
I don't think we have to fuss over whether televid is a root or compound. Even when it is a compound, subsequent derivation is related to the substantive nature of the compound not to the verbal nature of vid.
The same mechanism of influence of the meaning of a compound on subsequent derivation is functional in matenmanĝ.
In a microcosm we see here the language working as it actually works unencumbered by theoretical baggage.
I agree with you Chainy that televidigita is cumbersome and feels odd.
But if you see the vid in televido as an intransitive verbal root. It seems to have to be the form you should use. The same goes if you accept the 'official' telvid-i of the 8-a aldono.
I think what usage is telling us is the televid whether a compound or root is effectively a substantive idea, and that should be the springboard for interpreting the meaning of further derivation.
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 10:30:10
Miland:Officiala or Fundamenta is not necessarily correct.Sudanglo:The question is how do you decide if something is correct?I do not deny the value of looking at usage. But in this case we have the Akademio taking an official position
Haven't Flor, Plant, and Lum all changed from the original official prescription, because subsequent usage didn't match up?
Miland (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 20:20:56
sudanglo:Haven't Flor, Plant, and Lum all changed from the original official prescription, because subsequent usage didn't match up?Have they changed? In any case, in the presence of uncertainty, I would say that we should stick with the official position as the most reliable.
erinja (Покажи профила) 23 януари 2012, 22:53:52
Miland:Have they changed? In any case, in the presence of uncertainty, I would say that we should stick with the official position as the most reliable.Then again, if one is coming from a logical position of "alies isn't alies", then one can pretty much choose any form that one feels like choosing; official status and logic needn't enter into the picture.
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 24 януари 2012, 11:36:43
In the early days, deference to and reference to authority were very sensible while the language established itself.
Whilst normative sources and prescription still have some relevance, any absolutist position opens Esperanto to the charge of being like a religion - which is not appropriate to the role it aspires to.
However, Esperanto should not allow random development in the language (like the national languages) but remain systematic.
But we cannot always wholly rely on the edicts of the grammarians and the theorists.
If they promulgate a false or approximate view of Esperanto's systematic mechanisms, we should reject charges that a certain usage is not systematic because it doesn't comply with their theory.
The issue with alies or televido is not whether they conform to a particular theoretical position, or whether Zamenhof used the words, or whether they are sanctioned by NPIV or PAG or PMEG.
The issue is whether they undermine systematicity in the language.
Are they isolated cases in Esperanto, idioms if you will, or are
they manifestions of a mechanism which has some universality?
Anybody who argues that word X is wrong because it does not conform to a certain theory (like for example the inherent grammatical class of roots) must be absolutely sure that the theory ACTUALLY accounts for way the language works and not just 95% of the time.
If there are quite a few common words like X, then the theory has to change, rather than these words be declared wrong.
Bemused (Покажи профила) 25 януари 2012, 08:15:01
sudanglo:Bravo, finally someone cuts the Gordian knot.
The issue with alies or televido is not whether they conform to a particular theoretical position, or whether Zamenhof used the words, or whether they are sanctioned by NPIV or PAG or PMEG.
The issue is whether they undermine systematicity in the language.
sudanglo gets my vote for supreme arbiter of the esperanto language.
Oh, wait, the point he makes is that the language is better off without arbiters, supreme or otherwise.
So sad, too bad, you just lost the job that you are best qualified for lol.
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 25 януари 2012, 12:24:10
But, as you point out, I believe that the supreme arbiter is a CORRECT analysis of the mechanisms of word formation in Esperanto.
It is this which should decide whether any particular usage is dangerous, or whether it threatens Esperanto's distinctness from the natural languages - the evolution of which is governed heavily by pragmatic principles rather than systemic ones.