Til indholdet
Svare

Building a computational grammar for Esperanto, will need linguistic assistance (questions)

af juliaH, 27. apr. 2012

Meddelelser: 46

Sprog: English

juliaH (Vise profilen) 2. maj 2012 12.44.06

sudanglo:
Something like that. But Julia as I said, you might find different opinions about this.
That is where "according to your opinion" came in handy ridulo.gif !

sudanglo:It would not be considered an important point by Esperantists, I think, and no eyebrows would be too raised if you used agreement.
You see, to me and my grammar format it is important, because I will have to make a specific decision what the grammar is to produce as output and take as input, and I have to be able to give the reasons for my choices, and even small choices need to be accounted for.

sudanglo:I think, if you look this point up in PMEG it says something like vidis iun foriranta would mean vidis ke iu foriris, and vidis iun forirantan would mean vidis kiam/dum iu foriris. The chap to ask is Dark Weasel who is very good at finding specific references in PMEG.
Thank you for both hints! It sounds very reasonable, I found this in PMEG thanks to your suggestion:
Mi vidis miajn amikojn forirantaj per trajno. → Mi vidis ilin forirantaj per trajno. Forirantaj (per trajno) devas resti por ke la senco de la frazo ne ŝanĝiĝu. Forirantaj estas do perverba priskribo de la objekto, kaj ne havu N-finaĵon. La senco estas: Mi vidis miajn amikojn, kaj vidis, ke ili estas forirantaj per trajno. (Anstataŭ forirantaj oni ankaŭ povas uzi I-verbon: Mi vidis miajn amikojn foriri per trajno.) Se oni dirus forirantajn, la senco fariĝus: Mi vidis tiujn el miaj amikoj, kiuj estis forirantaj per trajno. Aŭ: Mi vidis miajn amikojn, kiam ili estis forveturantaj per trajno.

(My marking in bold format; http://bertilow.com/pmeg/pmeg140/gramatiko/special...)
and
Ofte en vespero ŝi vidadis lin forveturantan sub la sonoj de muziko.FA1.57 Ŝi vidadis lin, kiam li estis forveturanta.

(http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/specialaj_prisk...
Thank you again for your assistance, and for the link, it is very much appreciated!

sudanglo (Vise profilen) 2. maj 2012 19.34.00

On the matter of authority, Julia, with regard to Esperanto grammar, both PMEG and the earlier PAG (Plena Analiza Gramatiko) are widely respected and fundamentally sound. However, you should understand that there may be disagreement with these authorities with regard to certain specific points, and even Zamenhofian usage may be disregarded, though this is also largely respected.

The ultimate authority rests with the speakers of the language, and not with the grammarians.

I should point out that over the years certain theories of Esperanto grammar have been promulgated by the grammarians and whilst they may be didactically useful approximations, they may not tell the whole story.

When interrogating speakers of Esperanto on a certain point, they may assert that something is the case because it is congruent with these widely known theories. However their actual usage, and comprehension may not conform.

This sort of argument from bandied about theory crops up regularly in Forum discussions. How did you find the Miner article - useless or illuminating?

Kirilo81 (Vise profilen) 2. maj 2012 20.17.56

sudanglo:
The ultimate authority rests with the speakers of the language, and not with the grammarians.
Nope, significant parts of the norm are fixed by the Fundamento. No speaker can ever change it. In a language nearly without L1-speakers this is highly needed.

erinja (Vise profilen) 3. maj 2012 02.57.14

The excellent book "Lingvo kaj vivo" had a poll in which eminent Esperantists of the time (several decades ago) were asked which verb endings they would use in certain situations.

Several of them made choices that I would consider flat-out wrong, though in some of the situations there was more than one variant that I considered correct.

Considering how Esperanto grammar is relatively unified, I am sometimes surprised at the extent to which agreement isn't reached on certain small details.

sudanglo (Vise profilen) 3. maj 2012 08.24.41

I have to disagree Kirilo. Whilst it was clearly necessary in the early stages to impose some sort of stability on the language (ne tuŝu la Fundamenton), we have surely moved beyond this stage.

Corpuses like the Tekstaro, are now a freely accessible and searchable repository of L1 intuitions, and from a psychological perspective most experienced Esperantists would view themselves as having a similar relationship to the language as an L1 speaker has to his/her denaska lingvo.

The 'spertuloj' are most definitely in charge of the language.

Erinja, 'Lingvo kaj Vivo' was published in 1959 and includes essays going back many years before. Do you remember where in the book those polls you refer to are? It would be interesting to check them out from a modern perspective.

Anyway, even in the case of natural languages there can be areas where native speakers may disagree.

erinja (Vise profilen) 3. maj 2012 09.00.00

sudanglo, unfortunately my copy isn't easily accessible since it's packed up for a move.

The section had to do with verb tense. It was more of a survey than a poll, I vaguely recall that the results were printed in a sort of grid format (but small on the page, not big). I believe that each line was marked with the initials of the person who submitted that set of responses.

It may have been in a chapter about use of -us and -u. Or it may possibly have been in a chapter about grammar in general, and they survey possibly covered more grammatical forms than just the verb part that I remember.

If you have a copy, probably the best thing you can do is flip through and look for a page that has some kind of results in a tablular format.

Kirilo81 (Vise profilen) 3. maj 2012 19.17.45

sudanglo:I have to disagree Kirilo. Whilst it was clearly necessary in the early stages to impose some sort of stability on the language (ne tuŝu la Fundamenton), we have surely moved beyond this stage. [...]
Perhaps, but who decided when that we don't need the Fundamento any more? The last decision was made in 1905, and it states that the Fundamento is valid until the Fina Venko.
When I look around in the lernu forums I think that there are still as many people eagerly wishing reforms as were 100 years ago. Now it is easy to tame them, but without a written norm it'll get hard, I think.

RiotNrrd (Vise profilen) 4. maj 2012 02.41.39

As far as I am concerned, the Fundamento is netuŝebla. I expect that if you polled experienced Esperantists, the vast majority would agree with me.

Hyperboreus (Vise profilen) 4. maj 2012 03.44.30

Forigite

sudanglo (Vise profilen) 4. maj 2012 09.24.02

Of course, I didn't want to imply that the Fundamento itself can now be re-written (it remains netuŝebla) merely that the language has moved beyond the Fundamento.

When Esperantists today want to check a point of language they refer to NPIV, PMEG, PAG and the Tekstaro, and even those can be out-of-date.

The whole point of the Boulogne Declaration was to prevent language reform and the split into dialects or Esperantidoj, not to prevent evolution.

Ĉiun ideon, kiu ne povas esti oportune esprimata per tiu materialo, kiu troviĝas en la Fundamento de Esperanto, ĉiu esperantisto havas la rajton esprimi en tia maniero, kiun li trovas la plej ĝusta, tiel same, kiel estas farate en ĉiu alia lingvo

Direct quote from the Bulonja Deklaro.

Tilbage til start