What's the meaning of instruanta libro? And why would you need to describe an instructive book as such rather than tre instrua libro?

I repeat my opinion expressed elsewhere that to limit Y-anta X-o to just the meaning of X-o kiu Y-as, when that has no sense, is unnecessarily 'grammatical'.

I don't see why Komencanta demando can only mean a question that begins (which is nonsense) rather than a beginner's question (which does make sense).

Isn't it a general rule with compound words that their meaning is interpreted in a way which makes sense in terms of what we know of the world?

A kafpauzo is not a break in which coffee takes a rest, nor is matenmanĝa horo a time when a horo eats.

Whether Y-anta X-o is to be interpreted as an X-o kiu Y-as or an X-o characteristic of, or belonging to a Y-anto, surely depends on X and Y.

It may be pushing it a bit to see instruanta libro as the teacher's book, because a book povas instrui. But to see an Administranta problemo as a problem which administrates is bonkers.

darkweasel:

gianich73:Instruanto is the person who is teaching at this moment. That is not his profession.

QFT (just for another discussion on this forum )

I agree with Sudanglo, that it's not always true that the meaning of 'instruAnto' relates only to what is happening 'at this moment'. That's a far too strict interpretation. -Ant- is commonly used in a broader sense.

sudanglo:What's the meaning of instruanta libro? And why would you need to describe an instructive book as such rather than tre instrua libro?

I repeat my opinion expressed elsewhere that to limit Y-anta X-o to just the meaning of X-o kiu Y-as, when that has no sense, is unnecessarily 'grammatical'.

I don't see why Komencanta demando can only mean a question that begins (which is nonsense) rather than a beginner's question (which does make sense).

Isn't it a general rule with compound words that their meaning is interpreted in a way which makes sense in terms of what we know of the world?

A kafpauzo is not a break in which coffee takes a rest, nor is matenmanĝa horo a time when a horo eats.

Whether Y-anta X-o is to be interpreted as an X-o kiu Y-as or an X-o characteristic of, or belonging to a Y-anto, surely depends on X and Y.

It may be pushing it a bit to see instruanta libro as the teacher's book, because a book povas instrui. But to see an Administranta problemo as a problem which administrates is bonkers.

I know what you mean, Sudanglo. Certainly in some cases, common sense means that the adjectival form of an ant-word can only sensibly be understood in one way. So perhaps you could get away with using it like this. But still, I'd probably avoid doing that anyway, just as it's not very common to see such usage.

sudanglo:If instruanto strictly means whoever is teaching at the moment, then as soon as your dance lesson has ended you would have to refer to the instructor as the instruinto, and before the lesson has started as the instruonto.

I think not!

Languages are manageable and there are nuances. You may call your dance teacher instruanto, instruinto or instruonto depending on your communicative intentions and the context. Remember, a language is just a tool for expressing yourself.

Of course, you might. I merely wished to demonstrate by a little reductio ad absurdum, that instruanto does not rigorously mean someone engaged in the act of teaching at the time - any more than eterna komencanto is only applicable when the person concerned is having another go at learning Esperanto.

At the heart of the very long discussion of anta versa ista in the Esperanto Forums, there lies the notion of the grammatical character of roots.

This idea is worth teasing out.

In general in Esperanto compounds (this includes one root+finaĵo), there is the issue of how roots should be interpreted.

Although there are exceptions (like posteulo or nepagipova) the general rule is that only one gramatika klas-finaĵo (o, e, a, etc),should be included in the compound word.

The lexical roots themselves do not have a meaning. You can't say that manĝ by itself has a specific meaning. But manĝo and manĝi do have meanings and you can look them up in the dictionary.

In a compound, therefore the question arises as to whether the root represents the meaning attached to the -i, or -o -, or -a etc form.

Mainly this is plain sailing. The root should be interpreted as conveying the meaning of the head word listing in the dictionary.

But this is not always the case. For example:

vestejo can be a vest(i)ejo (dressing room) or a vest(o)ejo (place to leave your coats);
matenmanĝa means matenmanĝ(o)-a though the head word listing is manĝi;
porkomencanta means por-komencantoj-a (and you don't make complex verb forms of porkomenci).

All this is largely down to common sense.

Now let's look at adminstranta and administrista. It has been argued that administrista must mean administrist(o)-a. I would easily agree. The problem is can administranta ever mean administrant(o)a?

I have argued that it can, depending on what the adjective qualifies. And there are plenty of examples in Esperanto word construction where a root may convey the meaning of one part of
speech or another.

In any case, the preservation of the so called 'grammatical' character of roots is the reason for so much hot air being expended in the Esperanto forums on ant versus ist.

sudanglo:At the heart of the very long discussion of anta versa ista in the Esperanto Forums, there lies the notion of the grammatical character of roots.

This idea is worth teasing out.

In general in Esperanto compounds (this includes one root+finaĵo), there is the issue of how roots should be interpreted.

Although there are exceptions (like posteulo or nepagipova) the general rule is that only one gramatika klas-finaĵo (o, e, a, etc),should be included in the compound word.

The lexical roots themselves do not have a meaning. You can't say that manĝ by itself has a specific meaning. But manĝo and manĝi do have meanings and you can look them up in the dictionary.

In a compound, therefore the question arises as to whether the root represents the meaning attached to the -i, or -o -, or -a etc form.

Mainly this is plain sailing. The root should be interpreted as conveying the meaning of the head word listing in the dictionary.

But this is not always the case. For example:

vestejo can be a vest(i)ejo (dressing room) or a vest(o)ejo (place to leave your coats);
matenmanĝa means matenmanĝ(o)-a though the head word listing is manĝi;
porkomencanta means por-komencantoj-a (and you don't make complex verb forms of porkomenci).

All this is largely down to common sense.

Now let's look at adminstranta and administrista. It has been argued that administrista must mean administrist(o)-a. I would easily agree. The problem is can administranta ever mean administrant(o)a?

I have argued that it can, depending on what the adjective qualifies. And there are plenty of examples in Esperanto word construction where a root may convey the meaning of one part of
speech or another.

In any case, the preservation of the so called 'grammatical' character of roots is the reason for so much hot air being expended in the Esperanto forums on ant versus ist.

Wow ! Nun tiu ĉi studentantistulo komprenas perfecte! A lot to understand but it seems that I should just stick to good 'ol instruisto for teacher. Thanks gang! Tom