Съобщения: 79
Език: English
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 12:03:27
(vi trovos la pastron en la vestejo - la nova vestejistino ĉe (nomo de nokto-klubo) estas tre bela)
However, the theory of grammatical class of a root doesn't permit this ambiguity.
On the other hand, if you start from the idea that words have conventionalised meanings, and in derived compounds we don't bother usually to insert a finaĵo to flag the word that we had in mind (principle of sufiĉo kaj neceso), then there isn't a problem.
Let me spell that out.
Behind the scenes as it were, Vestejo can be either Vest(o)ejo or Vest(i)ejo - the departure point may be the meaning of vesto or the meaning of vesti.
The classic problem broso v. kombilo is esily dealt with on the basis of meaning without the necessity to posit a grammatical root class.
We don't say 'brosilo' because broso already (by convention) means brosilo.
And you can understand this explanation because on seeing 'brosilo' your immediate reaction is to parse this as bros(i)ilo, as an ilo por brosi.
The world does not immediately seem to contain objects which are iloj for brushes - though there could I suppose be some technical widgets which really are a bros(o)iloj.
Why isn't a word like 'lernejo' ambiguous if vestejo is? Because we have no use for lern(o)ejo, only for lern(i)ejo - or, if you like, a place for lernoj is the same as a place for lernado.
Vest is different because the conventionalised meaning of vesto (garment) is an object and in the real word we have two sorts of vestejoj - places for leaving clothes (garderobe) as well as places for donning garments (vestry)
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 12:12:27
Why take a pop? Because someone has to tell the Emperor he is not wearing any clothes.
And because I object to the high priests of the grammatical class lording it over the average Esperantist with their Latinate obscurities, like medieval clerics lording it over the peasants.
tommjames (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 13:10:07
sudanglo:someone has to tell the Emperor he is not wearing any clothesOh come on! The root class theory is not some conspiracy cleverly designed to conceal the truth about how Esperanto works, or stifle discussion and debate about usage by improperly bestowing doubt upon this or that word. It's a description of the function of the language that does make sense in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Misapplication of the theory is a different matter though. If someone says such and such a word MUST mean this or that, by invoking the root-classes concept as supreme arbiter, then they have made a mistake.
That it is wrong (as indeed it is) to say "korekta must mean 'corrective' because the root is verbal", does not say anything about the root-class theory besides the fact (known to anybody who takes the time to understand both the theory and the language properly) that its range of applicability in deriving the meaning of a word/compound or the effect of some grammatical operation upon the root, is limited.
So it's limited. Big deal. It couldn't be any other way and even if it could, your new Esperantology is likely to be a whole lot more complex than what we have now. But feel free to disprove me on the latter point if you wish; I remain all ears on your ideas for improvement.
erinja (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 14:05:02
sudanglo:And because I object to the high priests of the grammatical class lording it over the average Esperantist with their Latinate obscurities, like medieval clerics lording it over the peasants.Which Latinate obscurities does PMEG use, for example?
Terms like O-vorto and "Rolmontrilo" seem well designed for people unfamiliar with classical grammatical terminology.
Hyperboreus (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 15:10:52
tommjames (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 15:17:20
Hyperboreous:but where does this "inherent root class" theory come from? I haven't heard of it, but it sounds like an interesting topic. Could you post some links for further reading?You may find this page interesting.
tommjames (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 16:17:10
Link is here.
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 21:01:05
tommjames:The root class theory is not .. designed to stifle discussion and debate about usage by improperly bestowing doubt upon this or that word.But doesn't it get used precisely in this way. Look up 'korekta' meaning 2. in NPIV - marked as (evitinda).
Or let me quote from the Aktoj de la Akademio 1963-1967:
Nun ni estas en tia stato, ke ni posedas elprovitan teorion, kiu fidele klarigas, kiel estas formitaj - kaj plu ĉiutage formataj la vortoj (de la bonaj aŭtoroj) ....
Plie la probablecon, ke on starigos novan teorion, ni povas konsideri nula
High Priesty enough for you, Tom?
tommjames:Misapplication of the theory is a different matter though. If someone says such and such a word MUST mean this or that, by invoking the root-classes concept as supreme arbiter, then they have made a mistake.Obviously I would agree.
So what sort of theory is it, that works most of the time, but is limited and can't be relied on? I'd say one that needs replacing.
sudanglo (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 21:33:33
Erinja, basically I think the author of PMEG is a good egg. I was casting my net a little wider.
tommjames (Покажи профила) 02 февруари 2012, 21:52:46
sudanglo:But doesn't it get used precisely in this way. Look up 'korekta' meaning 2. in NPIV - marked as (evitinda).No doubt some people do use it that way, yes, and quite possibly the 'evitinda' designation (which by the way many authorities would disagree with) comes from that. But if it does, in my view that would be a questionable or simply wrong application of the theory. Not really fair to blame the theory itself for that.
As for the quote from the Academy, I agree with it and I don't really consider it high priestly. Their pronouncement on the likelyhood of a better theory coming along has been proven right.. by something like a hundred years of it not happening.
sudanglo:So what sort of theory is it, that works most of the time, but is limited and can't be relied on? I'd say one that needs replacing.As I said in a previous posting, I think the word-formation theories as they stand are about as good as can be hoped for, in a language like Esperanto. A new paradigm that accounts for every single derivational permutation seems entirely unrealistic to me. But again, feel free to set me straight on that any time you wish.
