Tin nhắn: 42
Nội dung: English
Fenris_kcf (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 11:36:51 Ngày 19 tháng 7 năm 2013
sudanglo:Not quite. Roots (and all other raw words) also have types. If they hadn't, you could build words like sun·il·o or dir·ec·a.There are plenty of roots that are just unarguably adjectival, or substantival, or etc. I don't think it's wrong to group those words into classes of like words.But roots aren't words (except for those roots like dum, la, kiel, hieraŭ etc that can be used without a grammatical finaĵo). Only words have defined meaning which can place them in a grammatical class.
RiotNrrd (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 15:33:05 Ngày 19 tháng 7 năm 2013
sudanglo:But roots aren't words...I think it should be pretty clear that I meant that there is no problem grouping like roots together, and accidentally typed "words" instead of roots. You are pouncing on a mistype which common sense ought to have clarified. The fact that roots aren't words is both true and irrelevant to my point. Words or not, it is obviously possible to group them together into categories with others that share similarities.
But I think that roots *do* have meaning, of a sort, that allows you to classify them. When you see the root "tabl-", there's no confusion about what slice of the universe we're talking about. We just haven't narrowed it down to whether it's an adverb or an adjective, so it's not yet in a form we can use in a sentence. But we still know that it's going to be table related, whatever it is.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 20:45:55 Ngày 19 tháng 7 năm 2013
It so happens that perhaps all compounds including 'bon' are derived from the meaning of bona, but that doesn't mean that any root in a compound will always have the meaning of a-form or the o-form or the i-form.
I have already given examples where this isn't the case.
It is the cases that don't fit the theory that demonstrate the weakness of the explanation, however many cases fit the explanation.
Which of these sentences is correct?
1. Skandale! Mi devis pagi 5 markojn por deponi mian ĉapelon ĉe la vestejo.
2. La korpo de la pastro estis trovita en la vestejo de lia propra preĝejo.
Is a martelilo a valid word in Esperanto?
RiotNrrd (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 21:05:33 Ngày 19 tháng 7 năm 2013
sudanglo:Is a martelilo a valid word in Esperanto?Sure. It's a tool you use to create and/or repair hammers with.
Maybe some kind of welding machine, or mold for the heads, or lathe for the handles or, I don't know, I'm not really in the hammer-making business, but I can imagine there's some kind of tool that martelilo might apply to. 
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 21:07:01 Ngày 19 tháng 7 năm 2013
sudanglo:Only words have defined meaning which can place them in a grammatical class.To quote you, this seems to me quite plainly wrong, and contradicted by usage.
sudanglo:the 'theory' must not account for 95% of the cases but all the casesNo theory could account for absolutely every case, so you're holding root classes up to an unrealistic benchmark and bashing it unfairly.
sudanglo:It is the cases that don't fit the theory that demonstrate the weakness of the explanationNo, all they show is that the theory doesn't explain absolutely every case. But, since it's silly to expect any theory to do that, it's not something any reasonable person needs to worry about.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 12:25:58 Ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2013
No theory could account for absolutely every case, so you're holding root classes up to an unrealistic benchmark and bashing it unfairly.I don't think so Tom. In a language like Esperanto which is characterised by its regularity, and an unfettered application its rules, the theories of it need to explain all the cases.
If an alternative theory is possible that makes the language look more systematic then it is clearly to be preferred. Seeing lexical roots in compounds as derived from words (whose meanings can be determined) rather than themselves being defined entities does just that.
Anyway, the root class theory causes problems, overcomplicates - like the malkorekteco de korekta (in the sense of conforming with what is considered correct/appropriate).
Horloĝo povas estis ĝusta sed neniam korekta. Konduto tamen povas esti korekta.
bartlett22183 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 17:34:20 Ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2013
sudanglo:Anyway, the root class theory causes problems, overcomplicates - like the malkorekteco de korekta (in the sense of conforming with what is considered correct/appropriate).Again, to me the theory of root classes actually simplifies and "decomplicates." To me it makes things easier, not more difficult or problematic. Obviously we differ.
darkweasel (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 18:06:02 Ngày 20 tháng 7 năm 2013
Fenris_kcf:You can build these words, they just don't mean anything useful.sudanglo:Not quite. Roots (and all other raw words) also have types. If they hadn't, you could build words like sun·il·o or dir·ec·a.There are plenty of roots that are just unarguably adjectival, or substantival, or etc. I don't think it's wrong to group those words into classes of like words.But roots aren't words (except for those roots like dum, la, kiel, hieraŭ etc that can be used without a grammatical finaĵo). Only words have defined meaning which can place them in a grammatical class.
bartlett22183 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 17:25:14 Ngày 21 tháng 7 năm 2013
darkweasel:What??? You mean 'malhundajn' does not mean anything useful?Fenris_kcf:Not quite. Roots (and all other raw words) also have types. If they hadn't, you could build words like sun·il·o or dir·ec·a.You can build these words, they just don't mean anything useful.
darkweasel (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 06:30:46 Ngày 22 tháng 7 năm 2013
bartlett22183:I thought that meant "related to cats"?darkweasel:What??? You mean 'malhundajn' does not mean anything useful?Fenris_kcf:Not quite. Roots (and all other raw words) also have types. If they hadn't, you could build words like sun·il·o or dir·ec·a.You can build these words, they just don't mean anything useful.