הודעות: 19
שפה: English
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 6 בדצמבר 2012, 23:22:32
revo:ŝuldatoAs to why they never saw fit to remove the analogous pagato, perhaps it has something to do with pagi's relative flexibility with its direct object. "Mi pagis lin", for example, doesn't seem strange, even though the direct object of pagi is usually that which is payed. Would "mi ŝuldis lin" be similarly acceptable, for the meaning of "I was in debt to him"? To be honest I'm not sure, but Pokrovskij's remark seems to suggest it would not. That being the case, we can see why "ŝuldato" for "creditor" might be perceived as dubious.
(evitinde) =kreditoro
Rim.: Ĉi tiun sencon mi opinias erara kaj misgramatika: ĉe la verbo ŝuldi oni ne konfuzas la dativan komplementon (al kiu oni ŝuldas) kun la objekto (kion oni ŝuldas). Tial ŝuldato povas esti nur pruntita persono (eventuale sklavo aŭ dungito kiun ties mastro aŭ dunganto pruntedonis al iu alia). La vorto aperis en PV; la PIV-oj (tute prave) ĝin forigis.
In most contexts I guess you would be unlikely to read pagato and ŝuldato as "person being used as payment" and "person who is owed [to somebody]", though we should note those meanings are not impossible by any means. If we're discussing a slavery situation, or an employee-on-loan agreement, they become a lot more likely. With that in mind it is therefore not unreasonable, IMO anyway, to wish to restrict those words to their strictly correct meanings.
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 7 בדצמבר 2012, 11:40:27
If you want to be pedantic you could say alŝuldato (analogous with alparolato) but this seems more than a little unnecessary.
If you can say Ni ŝuldas Johanon pro tio or Mi estas ŝuldata £10. Then there would seem no good reason for rejecting ŝuldato on grammatical grounds. (Pagato is certainly not an exception as we can quite comfortably say Mi pagis lin per ĉeko)
But any case, the general principle still applies, that Esperanto compounds are pragmatic, and determined by the way the world is and what we may commonly wish to refer to, rather than being strictly subjugated to the iron yoke of an exigent grammar.
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 7 בדצמבר 2012, 12:44:23
sudanglo:If you can say Ni ŝuldas Johanon pro tio or Mi estas ŝuldata £10. Then there would seem no good reason for rejecting ŝuldato on grammatical grounds.Agreed. The question then is whether those forms valid. I guess it's an open question, but if Pokrovskij is correct in his assertion that "with ŝuldi one does not confuse the dative complement (to whom one owes) with the object (that which is owed)", then I can quite see why you might at least consider them evitindaj, if not simply wrong.
It's true that common sense interpretation plays a large part in how world-building works in Esperanto, but it's not the whole picture. Grammar plays a part too, and it is quite normal for grammatical considerations to have some sway on judgement calls like this. Nothing wrong with that, so long as it isn't taken to extremes. I don't think I would say that the avoidance of "ŝuldato" for "creditor", on the grounds of what is usually the direct/indirect object, is especially extreme. Certainly not being "subjugated to the iron yoke of grammar" anyway. That charge should be reserved for the frenzied myopics who refuse to accept the equivalence of "korekta" and "ĝusta"
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 11 בדצמבר 2012, 12:07:25
The well-worn grammarian's complaint about korekta is that this should mean corrective on the grounds that the 'korekt' stands for korekti. And that acceptance of korekta in the meaning of conforming to the rules will lead to complications over the meaning of korektigi.
The argument over ŝuldato is parallel. A formal analysis would mean that this expression means that someone is owed (as a thing owed). And that acceptance of ŝuldato as a person to whom something is owed would lead to complications over the meaning of mi estas ŝuldata, and mi ŝuldas lin.
Incidentally, I find it difficult to see exactly why Esperanto would prefer oni ŝuldas al mi £10, rejecting mi estas ŝuldata £10. It seems to me that there can only be one possible meaning for mi estas ŝuldata £10.
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 11 בדצמבר 2012, 13:17:02
Call me pedantic but "Mi estas ŝuldata £10" seems a bit strange, grammatically. Like "Mi estis donita libro". At the least I would expect a preposition to be involved somewhere; most likely "Al" at the beginning of the phrase. But then it is no longer "mi" who is "ŝuldata" or "donita", but rather "£10" and "libro".
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בדצמבר 2012, 12:07:56
I agree that one's gut reaction is for there to be a preposition before libro. But none of the prepositions seem right - even 'je'.
Maybe that's the killer argument as to why you can't say mi estas ŝuldata £10 - not that this distorts the meaning of ŝuldi.
However we do say things like Ĝi estas longa du metrojn. I can't immediately see why ĝi estas longa je du metroj is OK, but mi estis donita je libro isn't.
I suppose it must be bound up with that donita (and ŝuldata) aren't viewed as states.
You could say La vazo estis starigita la kapon supre. And in that case there is no problem re-writing that as 'kun la kapo supre'.
tommjames (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בדצמבר 2012, 13:03:09
sudanglo:I can't immediately see why ĝi estas longa je du metroj is OK, but mi estis donita je libro isn't.Well the latter phrase is at least very unusual, so I would deem it evitinda on that basis. In any case "mi estis donita" seems too much like trying to copy the English "I was given [something]" for my liking. In Esperanto it seems overwhelmingly the case that something 'donita' is that which is given, not the person receiving it. You can respect that fact quite easily by adding "al" to the beginning of the phrase: "Al mi estis donita libro".
Anyway getting back to the OP's original question, I suppose it would be quite nice and elegant if lender and borrower could be expressed via juxtaposition of active and passive participle, but I think in the end it's better conveyed by pruntepren- and pruntedon-. Or deprunt- / alprunt-, however you would choose to form it.
sudanglo (הצגת פרופיל) 12 בדצמבר 2012, 20:58:26
I think words like 'korekta' demonstrate that you can use forms which are pragmatic without this leading to dubious derivation, or upsetting the grammatical applecart.
Altebrilas (הצגת פרופיל) 13 בדצמבר 2012, 15:30:02
sudanglo:... as the idea of a person that you owe to somebody is an improbable notion, just as the idea of a person used as currency (la pagato) is improbable (mi pagis lin en vian konton!!).IMHO, it is not so improbable, because in some countries, marriage is an agreement between two families involving money, home, gifts, etc. and one can say that the parents of the girl do owe her to the family of the boy...
And even in french, the word 'promise' (literally "promesitino") means 'fianĉino' (fiancée)...