Why is vizitanto a visitor instead of a visiting?
ca, kivuye
Ubutumwa 22
ururimi: English
sudanglo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 25 Ruheshi 2012 09:00:50
1. The meaning of 'o' in Esperanto is quite broad (thingy-ness)
2. The meaning of compounds in Esperanto is pragmatically determined - what is there in the world that this compound could usefully (and intelligibly) designate.
A manĝo can mean an act of eating (just as vizito can me a visit), however more often manĝo means a meal. Why? Because as a practical matter we more often want to refer to the thingy realisation of the idea of manĝi in this way.
If you think of 'ant' as meaning doing at the time in question (often, but not necessarily now), then an X-ant-o as a pragmatic matter will refer a person X-ing - fumanto, vizitanto, komencanto, etc. (and with -int we refer to the past, and -ont the future).
However it is not absolute that an anto/into/onto be a person.
In certain mathematical operations the -anto can be a number eg la multiplikanto. Or we have an abstract use, as in estonto, the future, what is going to be.
Because Esperanto has 'il', more often an object whose name in English might end in '-er' will be an 'ilo' in Esperanto rather than an 'anto'. But in principle an object could be an -anto - probably in cases where 'ilo' does not seem right.
Tempodivalse (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 25 Ruheshi 2012 15:59:40
sudanglo:This ambiguity has caused me some difficulty in the past (and I still slip up with it from time to time). When the root is adjectival or verbal, replacing the -a or -i with -o sometimes does not result in an obvious meaning.
A manĝo can mean an act of eating (just as vizito can me a visit), however more often manĝo means a meal. Why? Because as a practical matter we more often want to refer to the thingy realisation of the idea of manĝi in this way.
[...]
Or we have an abstract use, as in estonto, the future, what is going to be.
For that reason I think it's best to use a suffix. Instead of "manĝo" (which could mean: food? an act of eating? essense of eating? Context isn't always a help), I prefer "manĝado" or "manĝaĵo". Same for "estonto" (the future? or a person who will be?) - "estonteco" gets the meaning across without risk of ambiguity.
sudanglo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 25 Ruheshi 2012 20:42:09
Post komuna restoracia manĝo, ni iris al la Kultura Centro de la Fervojistoj
Manĝaĵoj are usually distinguished from manĝoj, and mean more like foodstuff. What you go out shopping for in order to prepare a manĝo.
However, many people do say 'estonteco'.
When the root is adjectival or verbal, replacing the -a or -i with -o sometimes does not result in an obvious meaning.Would you care to give some examples that have suprised you?
Tempodivalse (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 00:51:03
Would you care to give some examples that have suprised you?The word "havo" comes to mind. Is it the essence of having? Something which is owned? Ownership? From context, the meaning usually becomes clear, but I probably wouldn't come up with this word on my own ("haveco" or "havaĵo", depending on the circumstances, seems more suitable).
Now according to Lernu's mini-dictionary, the appropriate translation is "possession" (i.e. a substantive object), but on the other hand adjectival roots like bel/ or glor/ become "belo" ("beauty", not something beautiful) and "gloro" ("glory", not something glorious). So why isn't "havo", following the same pattern, "the essence of having"?
To be fair, I can't think of a lot of examples off the top of my head, and it's not something that gives me difficulty with comprehension or writing. But I've wondered about whether there's any particular logic to all this.
acdibble (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 02:11:52
possession - the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
PIV:
havo - La fakto, ke oni havas ion.
"havo" isn't a possession, it's possession or one's entire set of possessions.
Tempodivalse (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 02:29:58
acdibble:Oxford:Ohh. I simply misunderstood the definition, sorry. (My paper Esperanto dictionary, which is fairly extensive, doesn't even have a translation for "havo".) Still, how clear is this? "Havo" does not (to my fallible ear, anyway) have an immediately obvious meaning like "faro" or "esto" do (two nouns with verbal roots).
possession - the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
PIV:
havo - La fakto, ke oni havas ion.
"havo" isn't a possession, it's possession or one's entire set of possessions.
rheotaxis (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 06:19:48
hetinjo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 09:27:08
ordigi la kuirejon. Ĉu OK ?
sudanglo (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 09:45:00
It is rather that the meaning is fairly broad, encompassing things that may be more specifically identified as something concrete, or something abstract, or an act, or a person, or a characteristic - all are in some way 'thingy'.
In the case of 'havo' the meaning is more abstract, whereas havaĵoj are concrete possessions.
It is interesting to see the results thrown up by searches of the Tekstaro on the relative frequencies of the aĵo form and the o form.
Faraĵo is not a common word compared to faro. On the other hand estaĵo far outnumbers esto.
acdibble (Kwerekana umwidondoro) 26 Ruheshi 2012 17:32:09
黄鸡蛋:Yes, and if you look at the example sentences, it means one's entire set of possessions.acdibble:Oxford:In NPIV on the Internet, though, the second meaning of havo is "havaĵo"...
possession - the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
PIV:
havo - La fakto, ke oni havas ion.
"havo" isn't a possession, it's possession or one's entire set of possessions.