Mensagens: 119
Idioma: English
tommjames (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de novembro de 2012 17:45:28
eflizeo:I concur with this, sounds logic to me that puri cannot mean be clean.Given that you concur, I guess you meant to say can mean "be clean".
@T0dd - great post, I agree 100% with all you said there.
robbkvasnak (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de novembro de 2012 18:52:16
. 
Djino (Mostrar o perfil) 23 de novembro de 2012 20:33:22
laci = esti laca (to be tired)
lacigi = igi laca (to tire)
and
konsenti = esti konsenta ("to agree", "to be ok" )
and
beli = esti bela (to be beautiful)
beligi = igi bela (to beautify)
then, it is necessary to apply this reasoning to all verbs, like
puri = esti pura
purigi = igi pura...
T0dd (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 01:46:31
Djino:ifIf the root is "natively" adjective, then the -I form pretty much comes down to esti plus the adjective, with a slight difference in nuance. Blu-, like all color roots, is natively an adjective, which means that the adjective is the primary word associated with the root. So blui is "to be blue", and bluigi is "to make blue". Compare English, where you can whiten, redden, or blacken something, or do it intransitively, but you can't brownen, yellowen, or orangen anything. You can brown meat in a pan, but you can't black it. Old paper can yellow (intransitive), but you can't go around yellowing things...or can you? I'm not sure. I suppose we can say "Age yellowed the paper".
laci = esti laca (to be tired)
lacigi = igi laca (to tire)
and
konsenti = esti konsenta ("to agree", "to be ok" )
and
beli = esti bela (to be beautiful)
beligi = igi bela (to beautify)
then, it is necessary to apply this reasoning to all verbs, like
puri = esti pura
purigi = igi pura...
The root konsent-, however, is natively a verb. Unfortunately, it's an exception to the usual rule that Esperanto verbs are defined in such a way as to be either clearly transitive or intransitive. Vortaro give us two entries, one transitive, the other intransitive, both Zamenhofan. The intransitive meaning is, roughly, to be in agreement. The transitive meaning corresponds to what we would say in English as "agree to". In fact, I'd be more likely to use konsenti al for that, and call the so-called "intransitive" konsenti a case of using -N to drop the preposition al. Tekstaro finds about a dozen cases of konsenti al, in various tenses.
As an adjective, konsenta means agreement-like. Vortaro gives us Li faris nenian konsentan geston, which I'd translate as "He made no sign of agreement." But Li estis konsenta would mean, I think, "He was in agreement." Konsentigi would be to get someone to agree to something, thus to persuade. Mi konsentigis ilin naĝi kun mi. "I got them to agree to go swimming with me."
Djino (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 06:24:13
I guess you wanted to show your deep knowledge while I just wanted to explain easily the reasoning to goliath... You're making it complicated by suggesting memorizing all primary verbs' nature. Moreover they are often arbitrary.
Can you say what is the primary word for all words without cheking in a dictionnary? varmo or varma? parolo or paroli? laca or laci? pezo or pezi?
That's another good example, goliath:
peza = heavy
pezi = to be heavy, to weigh
pezigi = to weigh down (igi peza)
this logic has to be the same for all words
darkweasel (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 11:04:08
Djino:Compare to the root GRAND/ and you'll see that it's 100% analogous.
peza = heavy
pezi = to be heavy, to weigh
pezigi = to weigh down (igi peza)
EldanarLambetur (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 11:38:18
T0dd:I'm inclined to agree, though I'd use "pri" instead of "al", because the meaning is clearer. Though I do find the usage of accusative "n" here fine, because the meaning of the verb isn't altered when making it look transitive. I'll explain.
The transitive meaning corresponds to what we would say in English as "agree to". In fact, I'd be more likely to use konsenti al for that, and call the so-called "intransitive" konsenti a case of using -N to drop the preposition al. Tekstaro finds about a dozen cases of konsenti al, in various tenses.
In the intransitive meaning of "konsenti" the subject is the one doing the agreeing. E.g. "mi konsentas" (I am the one agreeing).
As in "la akvo bolas" the subject is the one being boiled.
In "mi konsentas tion" (I agree to that), the subject is still the one in agreement; the verb meaning has not changed.
However, someone saying "mi bolas la akvon" is clearly in error because they are trying to change the meaning of "boli" from "to be boiling" to "cause to be boiling", because they are now implying that the direct object is boiling rather than the subject.
Does that make sense or am I babbling?
sudanglo (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 12:19:12
Strict adherence to the notion that it is the roots themselves that have a certain grammatical character leads to all sorts of complications.
This idea seems to be right because often the meaning of a root in a compound is consistent.
However a little closer inspection shows that the meaning of some root 'X' can vary, ie the root may stand for X-a or X-i or X-o where these words have a defined meaning.
So if I describe something as ne-bros-inda or ne-bros-ebla, I most probably mean ne-brosi-inda or ne-brosi-ebla, and not ne-broso-inda or ne-broso-ebla.
In other words it makes more sense (because of the way the world is) that in those compounds the 'bros' stands for the meaning of brosi and not broso. Thus is just a matter of common sense. (remember that most roots are not words and it is the word that has meaning)
Sometimes in a compound the interpretation can go either way. As has been said in previous discussions of this topic, a vestejo can be a vesto-ejo or a vesti-ejo (ie place for storing/depositing clothes or a dressing room).
T0dd (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 13:26:56
Djino:You can often guess, but not always.
Can you say what is the primary word for all words without cheking in a dictionnary? varmo or varma? parolo or paroli? laca or laci? pezo or pezi?
sudanglo (Mostrar o perfil) 24 de novembro de 2012 20:13:39
Can you say what is the primary word for all words without checking in a dictionary? varmo or varma? parolo or paroli? laca or laci? pezo or pezi?You make a good point Djino, though I might have chosen different words to illustrate it.
Clearly fluent speakers of Esperanto may not actually know what is the head word listing in the dictionary, yet speak correctly.
You might ask how this is possible under the theory that the roots - the ones that require a finaĵo - belong to a certain grammatical class.
The answer is that people learn words, not roots. So the average student of Esperanto learns that you can say la pezo (de la pakaĵo) estas 10 kg and Ĝi pezas 10 kg, without stopping for one moment to consider whether pezo must rather mean 'a weighing' and not 'weight', since the dictionary's head word listing is 'pezi'.
Similarly it causes no problem that the most common meaning of manĝo is 'a meal', not a bite or an eating, although manĝ is considered a 'verbal root'.
And because with quite a few roots the grammatical class (under the theory) may not be immediately available to the speaker, so he (or she) quite comfortably will use the noun meaning or the verb meaning or the adjective meaning when that root is in a multi-root word, regardless of the headword listing in the dictionary.
There was a discussion some time ago as to the analysis of matenmanĝi.
This to me is clearly mantenmanĝ(o)i, ie to take breakfast, and not maten(manĝi).
In the Tekstaro there is only one example (out of 31 hits) where matenmanĝi is followed by an accusative. 'Manĝi' though commonly takes an object.
This is quite understandable in terms of the manĝ in matenmanĝi standing for manĝo, despite the theoreticians position that manĝ is a 'verbal root'.
In the end, the root+finaĵo which gets listed first in the dictionary is the one that is most consistent with the derivations, and this can change with time. I believe 'plant' and 'lum' are classic examples where the headword listing changed.
This of course is inconsistent with the idea that the roots themselves have some pre-ordained grammatical value.