sudanglo:What I mean, Erinja, is that there is something odd about the inclusion in dictionaries of forms which are in principle incorrect - particularly if they are 'common evitindaj words'.

After all, in the illustrative examples to pin down the definitions one would not include sentences with misprints or errors of grammar.

To me, the clear solution would be simply not to give complete definitions with example sentences for these evitindaj words.

The entry could be a simple mark that this word is evitinda, with a redirect to the preferred word.

kŭestion/o: (evit.) vidu demand/o

[I made up that 'evitinda' word, so don't anyone go using it!]

pdenisowski:

EldanarLambetur:I would wonder if it could be either?

And if context doesn't make it clear, then would "vestaĵejo" and "vestadejo" be appropriate to differentiate?

Neither "vestaĵejo" nor "vestadejo" are in the PIV, the Gutenburg corpus,l

However, considering the word building principle of "as long as it makes sense" just because vestaĵejo and vestadejo aren't in PIV doesn't really matter, does it? I mean it's evident that a vestaĵejo is a place where you keep articles of clothing, right? Vestadejo may be a touch problematic. I keep getting this image of going in a room and putting on in turn every article of clothing you find in there. But then, I've been accused of being weird so my take in this last instance should understood with a huge salero.

orthohawk:

pdenisowski:

EldanarLambetur:I would wonder if it could be either?

And if context doesn't make it clear, then would "vestaĵejo" and "vestadejo" be appropriate to differentiate?

Neither "vestaĵejo" nor "vestadejo" are in the PIV, the Gutenburg corpus

However, considering the word building principle of "as long as it makes sense" just because vestaĵejo and vestadejo aren't in PIV doesn't really matter, does it? I mean it's evident that a vestaĵejo is a place where you keep articles of clothing, right? Vestadejo may be a touch problematic. I keep getting this image of going in a room and putting on in turn every article of clothing you find in there.

Maybe the dressing room at a fashion show (where models are constantly changing clothes) would be a "vestadejo"

But you're completely correct about the PIV. In my original post I mentioned that if you Google either "vestaĵejo" or "vestadejo" you get less than a dozen hits for either word (vestejo has almost 7000 hits), which to me means they aren't very common forms. This lack of current usage is far more important to me than whether or not a word is in the PIV or Gutenburg texts (which by definition don't reflect "current usage").

While I very strongly support the notion that Esperanto's great strength is in vortfarado and the ability to coin words as needed, I personally prefer using forms that are in more common use whenever possible.

Of course, I also enjoy the fact that I can make up words like "elseĝigi" (to make someone get out of a chair) which is, I hope, understood by other Espearnto speakers.

Amike,

Paul

Forigite

I can see both points. The root-class theory is useful for the beginner (like me) but still introduces complications into the learning process. (Wait, is "komb-" a noun or a verb?)

Any potential solution to this problem (assuming one is even possible) must take new folks into consideration.

From my point of view:
Why shouldn't kombo be acceptable if broso is?
Why shouldn't brosilo be acceptable if kombilo is?

The answer I've gotten boils down to - "that's just the way it is." To be honest, I'm fine with that. That's the way that both English and Spanish and - as far as I know - all languages work.

i.e. After my initial exposure to E-o, I knew that "dankon" was the correct way to say "thank you" but not why. But, it didn't matter at the outset. Arguably, it still doesn't. (Yes, I am aware that "dank(i) + o + n" indicates it is the object being acted on.)

@ sudanglo
I can respect your desire to have E-o be different; however, I don't see how you can realistically create a fundamental rule that wouldn't undo the accumulated history behind "kombilo" and "broso". Keep in mind this is a history that all of you more experienced E-o speakers take for granted. If "kombilo" suddenly became "kombo" I wouldn't care; however, I imagine you and many others would.

Be careful what you wish for.

ludomastro:I can see both points. The root-class theory is useful for the beginner (like me) but still introduces complications into the learning process. (Wait, is "komb-" a noun or a verb?)

Any potential solution to this problem (assuming one is even possible) must take new folks into consideration.

The solution is to learn the definitions of words - in Esperanto, not in another language. Learning through translation only is an imperfect solution, and it leads to use of false friends, transitivity mistakes, and difficulty in remembering what kind of grammatical root something is.

Is boli transitive or intransitive, a beginner might ask? And why are you making me memorize this information?

The solution is to memorize the definition of "boli", which is something like "to be in a state of becoming gaseous". The definition itself makes it clear that "boli" is intransitive, and it becomes unnecessary to memorize transitivity as an arbitrary fact.

Root type isn't generally marked in dictionaries, but again, it's obvious in most cases, because the core root type will be the main definition. Therefore we know that bol/ is a verb root because bol/i will be the main dictionary entry, and its definition will be correspondingly verby.

Definitions of brush and comb in Esperanto make it clear what the root forms are. And if you think about it logically, a comb has pretty much just one purpose - to comb things. But there are many different kinds of brushes, with many uses other than to brush things! You brush lint off your coat with a brush, you paint with a brush, you scrub with a brush. It actually makes logical sense that brush is a noun root and comb is a verb root.

In truth, root types aren't emphasized in Esperanto beginner texts because they are almost always obvious. Cases of confusion, like komb/ and bros/, are relatively rare, and there's normally a pretty good logical explanation for why things are that way.

There are good reasons for almost all of the seemingly arbitrary grammatical aspects of Esperanto, including why "saluton" has an -n. If the beginner wants to know why, he or she should simply ask the question. And if the tutor doesn't know, he or she should look up the answer thoroughly before simply claiming "that's just the way it is". In my many years of tutoring, I have logical answers to most of Esperanto's idiosyncracies, and it isn't because I was always personally interested; it's because students asked me "why must we use this weird form?" and I looked up the answers.

I mean no offense to linguists, but linguistics misses a simple truth about language. The human mind maps sounds to concepts. Linguists try to find patterns and propound theories, but eventually they all fail because the mapping of sounds to concepts is ultimately arbitrary. Back to Esperanto, its beauty is its openness. Its charm is that it will forever be spoken by people who lack a sound knowledge of its vocabulary. When they speak or write Esperanto they bring with them the cultural traditions and concepts of their native language. Thus vestejo is quite open as to its meaning as it ought to be. Overcoming this ambiguity is what makes Esperanto ultimately so satisfying. The speaker does not hear the words, easily mapping the sounds onto concepts, but he is forced to think about them, to get inside the speaker’s brain, and in so doing to learn so much more about the speaker than he would otherwise. Understanding may not bring agreement, but it will lead to respect. Respect, not love, leads to peace. In this way Esperanto is indeed the language of peace.

pdenisowski:In my original post I mentioned that if you Google either "vestaĵejo" or "vestadejo" you get less than a dozen hits for either word (vestejo has almost 7000 hits), which to me means they aren't very common forms. This lack of current usage is far more important to me than whether

True enough. However, this may mean simply that only less than a dozen people felt a pressing need to as precise as needed (vestajxejo) instead of the more ambiguous vestejo.

Forigite

It's both arbitrary and conventional.

There is nothing "doglike" about the sounds in "dog". It is arbitrary in the sense that any other set of sounds COULD have been used: "gleb", perhaps, or "troob", or "yebap". That we picked "dog" is arbitrary.

Once picked, it was then adopted by convention. "Dog" now means a particular kind of animal, whereas "gleb" does not. But it COULD have gone the other way around, and no one would be any the wiser.

"I'm gonna take the gleb for a walk" could have been a conventional usage. It wasn't/isn't, but the fact that it wouldn't have made any difference if it was illustrates the arbitrary nature of the sound to concept mapping.