Tin nhắn: 33
Nội dung: English
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 10:41:22 Ngày 08 tháng 3 năm 2013
'I am eating food' is a rather strange sentence in English. I am not at all sure in what circumstances it would be uttered. In English I would expect 'I am eating', and in Esperanto 'mi manĝas' (without specifying what you are eating) would be perfectly normal.
The distinction manĝo/manĝaĵoj is something like meal versus things you might eat which are insufficient to constitute a meal or are components of a meal, or comestibles.
You are going on a hike with a group. Kiu kunportos la manĝajojn?
hebda999 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 13:09:22 Ngày 08 tháng 3 năm 2013
1 Ago manĝi.
2 Tuto de la nutraĵoj, konsumataj dum manĝo.
3 (evi) = plado.
So the base meaning is "the act of eating".
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 13:31:09 Ngày 08 tháng 3 năm 2013
hebda999 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 09:46:09 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
sudanglo:Yes but have you searched the Tekstaro to see what statistically is the most common meaning?The base meaning does not exclude other possibilities. If we consider the English statistics, it turns out that you mostly say these:
"a about all and are as at back be because been but can"
And what does it prove? Tekstaro comes from early years of Esperanto, it should be updated.
If "manĝi" = to eat, then how "manĝo" can mean "the food". This is not logical to me, whatever the Tekstaro says in the matter. There is a transition of meaning of the root which is not acceptable in Esperanto, unless we want it to become as illogical as English is:
spiri = breathe
spiro = breath, and not the air (why?)
iri = to walk
iro = walk, pace, and not the road (why?)
If manĝo was food, then manĝi would be "to be food", but it isn't (why?).
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 13:21:55 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
Tekstaro comes from early years of Esperanto, it should be updated.Hardly fair. This corpus covers texts from the early years up to almost the present day. The dates of the texts can be seen by hovering over the entries on the main page.
hebda999 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 14:17:28 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
manĝoĉambro --- a room of food? or a room where they eat?
post la manĝo ... here you have the act of eating.
I think that the big problem with Esperanto is that it lacks the natives who form a nation using this language as their own. So we must relay on foreigners, and it is well known that foreigners make many mistakes. But on the other hand, would there be an Esperanto nation, the language could deteriorate quickly and all its advantages would be lost. Anyway for me it is illogical to derive food from eating by just changing the grammatical class of the word. It something like "I eat an eat" in English.
EldanarLambetur (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 20:01:59 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
The fact that "an act of eating" is so similar to "a meal", is what makes "manĝo" usable as a type of reference to "food" in the right context. Of course when you're just looking at isolated words, you'll have to pick a more common or regularly defined meaning, or accept some ambiguity. But that's not how language is, it's embedded.
"Manĝo atendas vin en la kuirejo." = "A meal awaits you in the kitchen."
This is obviously a meal waiting. Seems silly to over-specify by using any other gumf on "manĝ". The completed act of eating, is generally a meal (worldly context). The extra gumf seems like it would put a different emphasis instead, e.g.
"Manĝaĵoj atendas vin en la kuirejo." = "Some things to eat await you in the kitchen."
We're no longer suggesting a completed eating (a meal), instead being careful to say that "there are things that can be eaten", not necessarily constituting a meal (as per the distinction mentioned by Sudanglo)
I think it's dangerous to see changing the "i" to "o" as simply changing the grammatical class, because then it can lead to thinking perfectly fine Esperanto is illogical, perhaps think of "i" and "o" and the other finaĵoj as words in their own right, and when you attach them they have their own implications and such.
Djino (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 20:09:34 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
1. If the root refers to a property or a state, then the verbal form means : “to have this property or this state”.
Examples:
RAPID(a) → rapidi = agi rapide (to hurry)
AKTIV(a) → aktivi = agi aktive, esti aktiva (to be active)
PRET(a) → preti = esti preta (to be ready)
KURAĜ(a) → kuraĝi = esti kuraĝa, agi kuraĝe (to be courageous, to dare)
2. If the root refers to an instrument, a device, a tool... then the verbal form means, in theory : “use this tool for its usual purpose”:
Examples:
BROS(o) → brosi = uzi broson (to brush)
TAMBUR(o) → tamburi = ludi per tamburo (to drum)
FINGR(o) → fingri = tuŝi per fingro (thimble)
AŬT(o) → aŭti = iri per aŭto (to go by car)
3. If the root referts to a substance, the the verbal form means, in theory : "to supply / to line / to furnish with"
Examples:
AKV(o) → akvi = provizi per akvo, verŝi akvon (sur ion) (to flush, to rinse, to water, to irrigate)
OR(o) → ori = kovri per oro (to gild)
AER(o) → aeri = plenigi per aero (to air)
Remark:
To form such verbes, the suffix -UM- is sometimes used (ex: akvumi = to irrigate, to water), or also the unofficial suffix -IZ-
4. If the root refers to a person, an animal, or an animated thing, then the verbal form means, in theory: "being or acting like such this person, this animal, this thing"
Examples:
TAJLOR(o) (tailor) → tajlori = labori kiel tajloro, kudri kiel tajloro (to tailor, acting like a tailor)
GAST(o) (guest) → gasti = esti gasto (ĉe iu), loĝi kiel gasto (to be a guest of, staying like a guest)
REĜ(o) (king) → reĝi = regi kiel reĝo, esti reĝo (super io) (to reign)
HUND(o) (dog) → hundi = agi kiel hundo, vivi kiel hundo (acting like a dog)
SERPENT(o) (snake) → serpenti = iri kiel serpento (to move like a snake)
OND(o) (wave) → ondi = fari ondajn movojn (to undulate)
5. Other cases
In some cases, verbs formed from a nonverbal root get a meaning that relates in some way to that root, but without the application of a specific rule
Examples:
FIŜ(o) (fish) → fiŝi = provi kapti fiŝojn, fiŝkapti (to fish)
POŜT(o) (post) → poŝti = transdoni (ekz. leteron) al la poŝto (to post)
ORIENT(o) (east) → orienti = decidi la pozicion (de io) rilate al oriento (to orient)
REGUL(o) (rule) → reguli = gvidi la funkciadon de maŝino k.s. laŭ iaj reguloj. (to regulate)
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 23:04:42 Ngày 09 tháng 3 năm 2013
Actually I did the search through Tekstaro.But not carefully enough.
Consider these examples:
1. Du birdoj mortis jam pro manĝo de venenitaj fiŝoj.
2. Kaj kie oni servis la manĝon en la ĝardeno?
There are many more instance of type 2 usage than of type 1.
Incidentally, manĝoĉambro = dining room (room for meals) and post la manĝo (21 hits in the Tekstaro) means after the meal.
Tamen post manĝo de spinaco, brosu la dentojn.
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 09:19:41 Ngày 10 tháng 3 năm 2013
I would agree that 'the act of eating' could be considered the base meaning of 'manĝo', simply because verbal nouns usually do have that 'act of' meaning. Looking at the hits in Tekstaro it actually seems a bit tricky to judge which is the more common meaning though. There are plenty of hits where either interpretation would be valid, and where the author may even have had both ideas in mind simultaneously. "Mi ĝuis la manĝon" for example might be used when both the food itself and the whole eating process were enjoyed.