본문으로

Why is vizitanto a visitor instead of a visiting?

글쓴이: xdzt, 2012년 6월 24일

글: 22

언어: English

xdzt (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 5:57:32

'viziti' is 'to visit', and 'vizito' is 'a visit', so why does adding an -o to vizit/ant/ make it the visitor instead of the visiting/visitation?

Also, would a vizitonto be a future guest/visitor? (ie, a visitor you'll receive in the future, rather than a visitor FROM the future lango.gif)

Hyperboreus (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 6:14:52

Forigite

xdzt (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 8:18:37

Hyperboreus:
xdzt:'viziti' is 'to visit', and 'vizito' is 'a visit', so why does adding an -o to vizit/ant/ make it the visitor instead of the visiting/visitation?

Also, would a vizitonto be a future guest/visitor? (ie, a visitor you'll receive in the future, rather than a visitor FROM the future lango.gif)
"vizitant'" is the present participle. Now adding an -o to it, makes it a noun: vizitanto = "a visiting person/animal/thing" = "a visitor".
"vizitont'" is the future participle. Now adding an -o to it, makes it a noun: vizitonto = "a going-to-visit person/animal/thing" = "a future visitor".

For instance:

"Estimataj vizitantoj, bonvolu ne malpurigi tiun ĉi lokon. La vizitontoj dankos vin!"
Right, I understand all of this, so perhaps I didn't phrase my question very well.

viziti is the verb 'to visit', and when you add an -o, you turn it into a noun, but the noun isn't a person visiting, it's the visit itself. Why then is it different with the participles?

fajrkapo (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 8:54:03

-ant is used for people, to express the person who...whatever it is

Hyperboreus (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 9:30:59

Forigite

erinja (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 24일 오후 9:36:26

xdzt:'viziti' is 'to visit', and 'vizito' is 'a visit', so why does adding an -o to vizit/ant/ make it the visitor instead of the visiting/visitation?
A vizito *is* a visiting/visitation, in my opinion. How would you differentiate between "a visit" and "a visiting"?

(vizitado = visiting, the prolonged process; maybe that's what you kind of had in mind)

xdzt (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 25일 오전 12:43:10

Hyperboreus:Now the participles per se relate always to the actor and not to the action itself, because of the simple fact that they are participles.
Thanks for this! As long as they always behave this way, I'm pretty content. I was worried that sometimes it may refer to the action rather than the actor, and that I'd have no clear way to know which except by context.

Hyperboreus (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 25일 오전 1:16:09

Forigite

RiotNrrd (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 25일 오전 2:14:08

You'll note that even the -anto word "Esperanto" technically refers to a person. It's just shorthand for La Lingvo de Doktoro Esperanto (The Language of Dr. Person-Who-Hopes).

The use of Esperanto to refer to the language itself constitutes a minor irregularity, but not a particularly troublesome one. On occasion you will find uses of esperanta referring to something pertaining to the language (e.g., esperantaj vortoj), rather than to something relating to hoping, and context will have to be your guide as to which it is.

Tempodivalse (프로필 보기) 2012년 6월 25일 오전 3:47:58

RiotNrrd:You'll note that even the -anto word "Esperanto" technically refers to a person. It's just shorthand for La Lingvo de Doktoro Esperanto (The Language of Dr. Person-Who-Hopes).

The use of Esperanto to refer to the language itself constitutes a minor irregularity, but not a particularly troublesome one. On occasion you will find uses of esperanta referring to something pertaining to the language (e.g., esperantaj vortoj), rather than to something relating to hoping, and context will have to be your guide as to which it is.
Slightly off-topic, I've read somewhere that one way to circumvent this ambiguity is to capitalise E when talking about the language, and leave it lowercase when intending it as a participle. (However, that would appear to go against the general rule of not capitalising adjectives pertaining to proper names.) Does anyone do this?

다시 위로