Beiträge: 59
Sprache: English
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 29. März 2012 19:51:18
But when you change the lin to min this meaning becomes bizarre.
A case where the adjective/adverb contrast could well be useful is in expressing the idea that you feel strange.
After knocking around with Esperantists for some time I started feeling a bit weird myself.
Mi komencis senti min mem stranga.
But for having a funny turn, not feeling quite yourself - Mi sentis min strange - not meaning that you felt yourself turning into a strangulo.
RiotNrrd (Profil anzeigen) 29. März 2012 20:12:12
sudanglo:But for having a funny turn, not feeling quite yourself - Mi sentis min strange - not meaning that you felt yourself turning into a strangulo.I would interpret "mi sentis min strange" as "I felt myself, in a strange manner".
Adverbs describe manner, and manner is an active concept, not a passive one. Verbs are the active words, therefore adverbs are always going to end up describing the verbs, not the nouns. Nouns have no "manner" unless they are acting in some way. "Manner" implies a verb.
I just cannot see adverbs describing the qualities of nouns. Ever. Because that's what adjectives do. I don't see any grey area in there at all.
Chainy (Profil anzeigen) 29. März 2012 20:40:12
RiotNrrd:I would interpret "mi sentis min strange" as "I felt myself, in a strange manner".What exactly do you mean by 'I felt myself'?
In English 'to feel' can mean:
1. to be aware of something through touching or being touched. (and other such meanings, with 'touch' being the key feature)
2. To experience some sensation or emotion (no touching or groping going on here)
In Esperanto, 'senti' corresponds to the second meaning, ie. its meaning is more like 'to sense/perceive'. Just take a look at the ReVo definitions.
If there's any touching or groping going on, then in Esperanto the correct word is 'tuŝi' or 'palpi'.
Mi sentas min strange = I feel a bit off/strange/weird (something's amiss with how I'm feeling - emotionally and not by means of touch...etc).
RiotNrrd (Profil anzeigen) 29. März 2012 21:53:36
I say the adverb describes the action of the verb, and has nothing to say about the qualities of any nouns at all (except insofar as they act through the verb).
The details of exactly how the act of feeling yourself is strange are not expressed in that sentence, only that the manner in which it was accomplished was strange. Maybe you used ESP, or discovered how you felt through intense psychoanalysis, or by reading tarot cards; I don't know - it isn't specified, nor is it even relevant. It's only the strangeness of the method that gets mentioned, not what the method was.
Chainy (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 04:45:32
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 10:22:13
Here's a quote for PMEG E-vortoj montras manierojn, lokojn, tempojn, kvantojn k.s.:
And here's another one En tia nuanca rolo E-vorto povas rilati al tiaj vortoj, kiujn ĝi normale ne povas priskribi, ekz. O-vortoj kaj personaj pronomoj:
erinja (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 11:07:47
This is a verb without a subject.
It would be "varma" if you meant to describe "hodiaŭ". It's the difference between saying "today is warm" (using "today" as if it were a noun), and "Today it's warm" (now the verb is without a subject, and "today" is an adverbial expression of time)
RiotNrrd (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 17:50:23
Chainy:RiotNrrd, you seem to be taking things to the absurd, where meaning doesn't even have a role to play any more!Meaning has no role to play in questions of grammar.
Grammar is concerned with the structure of the language, not its content. It tells us how the various parts interact. In a properly formed sentence, nouns take on certain roles which are different than the roles played by adjectives, which are different than those of prepositions, articles, etc. The specific meanings of the words are irrelevant to such discussions; these are questions of parts of speech - roles - and how they interact, not about meanings.
In the current thread, we are discussing whether or not adverbs can describe nouns. I claim that they cannot; that if you want to describe a noun, you must use an adjective. It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Your argument appears to be that sometimes adjectives describe nouns, but sometimes adverbs do, too. If that's true, how do you distinguish between when you should use one and when you should use the other?
Hyperboreus (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 18:29:39
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 30. März 2012 19:45:19
As to whether grammar is independent of semantics, I would say no.
Ultimately language is highly evolved cultural artefact, a mutually agreed/conventionally determined system for the transfer of meaning from one person to another.
It is certainly not some sort of algebra in which X and Y in the equation can take any values.
The fundamental issue in the discussion in this thread is not really whether a particular adverb use violates some grammatical rule.
It is rather that given that there are two meanings to be distinguished, can you do this in a certain way with the resources of the language (which include the conventional patterns).
Rephrasing that - will using the adjective fail to convey my intended meaning, and will the adverb do a better job.
A nice example from PMEG is la regionoj sude de Parizo contrasted with la regionaj sudaj de Parizo. In both case we are talking about the location of regions.
If we suspect someone of having a temperature, then ĉu vi sentas vin varma? is fine, but if we want to ask someone whether the room is comfortably warm then ĉu vi sentas vin sufiĉe varme? is a candidate.