글: 42
언어: English
Fenris_kcf (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 22일 오전 10:10:47
darkweasel:IMO it's not correct to do so. It's like using saynessish in English. These affixes simply don't work that way. Just like one can't use the function is_prime on π.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.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 22일 오전 10:29:36
Again, to me the theory of root classes actually simplifies and "decomplicates."It is part of the theory of root classes that each lexical root has a unique class. It is this aspect that complicates.
On the other hand considering that a lexical root in a kunmetitaĵo may carry the meaning of the -a form or the o-form or the i-form words even if it usually carries only one of those meanings makes the analysis simpler.
In any case, it is words that have defined meaning not roots (the ones that require a finaĵo), and any meaning attributed to the root comes from the meanings of words.
How would a linguist knowing nothing of the history of Esperanto, coming to it fresh, describe it?
What is bicikla ferio? (when bicycles go on holiday, or a cycling holiday?) What is a bicikla sonorilo?
What is a vestejo? A garderobe, or a dressing room, or both?
What does korekta mean? Correctional/corrective, or correct, or both?
Mi rimarkis ŝian ne-mastron de la akuzativo (valid or not?)
bartlett22183 (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 22일 오후 4:22:19
sudanglo:What else can I say? As a non-expert, my understanding is almost the exact opposite.Again, to me the theory of root classes actually simplifies and "decomplicates."It is part of the theory of root classes that each lexical root has a unique class. It is this aspect that complicates.
On the other hand considering that a lexical root in a kunmetitaĵo may carry the meaning of the -a form or the o-form or the i-form words even if it usually carries only one of those meanings makes the analysis simpler.
Without some notion of the basic classes of roots, I myself quickly get lost in E-o's conglomerated words. I have a hard enough time with some of them as it is. 
ofnayim (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 22일 오후 7:52:22
We are forgetting that grammar in general is an after the fact attempt to rationalize the language we use. Basically, the human brain maps objects and scenarios to sounds. Our brains don't care about rules, they do care about this conceptual mapping. Children learn language not be applying grammatical rules, but by associating sounds with objects and social scenarios. By aping these sounds infants learn how to interact with others. In the heuristic process of developing language over the millennia, we in our various language managed to impose some regularity on how we speak. This facilitated communication. That regularity is a by-product of language creation and acquisition, and not its core. Humans, being rational and inquisitive, noted that different languages shared patterns of usage, and hence tried to develop rules of language grammar. Some attempts were more successful than others. The existence of exceptions proves the futility of the task. Grammarians should not take themselves too seriously. People acquire language, but they have to learn grammar and all those nasty exceptions. As a constructed language Esperanto is slightly different because it was created to adhere to rules of usage. Being largely a written language (not having a significant population that uses it on a daily basis) this has proven to be useful. However, any person serious enough to master the language as a spoken medium must learn the language by mapping sounds to scenarios and objects, grammar be damned.
pniedzielski (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 23일 오전 1:34:47
La Akademio has written on the subject of root classes, and to my knowledge, the idea of roots having distinct classes was well accepted before then. This is why, for example, an adjectival root or compound with a verbal ending always has the meaning of "to be X", X being the root or compound's meaning. Blu- is inherently an adjective, so blui can only mean "to be blue". There are similar rules for other word formation (that have developed naturally through literary usage, especially under the influence of Kalocsay and Waringhien in the 20s and 30s).
I'd say that "direca" doesn't make much sense due to the meaning of the root "dir-", not any inherent word class of the root. "Paroleca", for instance, makes perfect sense, and means "of or pertaining to speech as viewed as a property" (as opposed to, for instance, "parolada", which means "of or pertaining to speech as viewed as an action" -- it's a very slight semantic shift, but it's there.) While the most literal English translation is awkward, the Esperanto is perfectly fine.
I'd say that "direca" doesn't make much sense due to the meaning of the root "dir-", not any inherent word class of the root. "Paroleca", for instance, makes perfect sense, and means "of or pertaining to speech as viewed as a property" (as opposed to, for instance, "parolada", which means "of or pertaining to speech as viewed as an action" -- it's a very slight semantic shift, but it's there.) While the most literal English translation is awkward, the Esperanto is perfectly fine.
darkweasel (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 23일 오전 7:52:18
Fenris_kcf:Direca can even mean something more or less useful ("resembling a saying"). And sunilo, hmmm... a solarium machine?darkweasel:IMO it's not correct to do so. It's like using saynessish in English. These affixes simply don't work that way. Just like one can't use the function is_prime on π.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.
sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 23일 오전 10:47:12
Blu- is inherently an adjectiveBut this is precisely what I object to.
Semantically the raw data, so to speak, of the language is the use of words, not roots, which in contrast to words only have a theoretical meaning, not one you can look up in the dictionary (if they are of the type that don't need a finaĵo).
Some modern televisions allow you could to control the colour balance in the picture. Therefore it makes sense to say when adjusting the picture that you can senbluigi la imagon.
But what am I then removing the bluo or the blua? If blu- always means blua, this presents a problem, which leads to a convoluted theory of word formation. But this is neatly sidestepped if in some words blu- means bluo.
Of course it is true that in many words a lexical root behaves as though it had a certain grammatical class, ie is equivalent to the headword in the dictionary, but can this fully account for the language?
In this connection it is worth noting that those roots that can be used as words (ie don't need a finaĵo) often belong to several grammatical classes not just one.
Morgaŭ estas vendredo; mi vidos vin morgaŭ.
tommjames (프로필 보기) 2013년 7월 23일 오후 12:04:41
sudanglo:If blu- always means blua, this presents a problemYes, but of course there is no problem because the root class theory does not say that blu- always means blua. In fact the theory as established by the Akademio states words to the effect of your "neat sidestep", i.e that in some words blu- could stand for bluo. Far from being "convoluted" this is explained simply in terms of a preposition (such as "sen" ) having a nounifying effect on the root. Since prepositions usually come before nouns, it's easy to see why that would be the case.
You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that the concept of roots having class is undermined by the fact other vortelementoj in a compound can affect what part of speech the root logically stands for. If I recall correctly, you even stated in a previous thread that the idea of roots having class is "abandoned" in such instances. While I understand where you're coming from, and can perhaps concede that it does present a minor difficulty for the theory, I cannot help feeling that your analysis is just too extreme and grossly exaggerates the problem. You're making far too big a deal out of it.
That roots have inherent leaning to a particular part of speech is clearly evident in the derivational morphology of a vast and diverse array of words and compounds in use. Knowing this aspect of the language and having it formalised in a theory that is named and can be reasoned about is useful and worth having. Your suggested alternative theory of seeing roots as little more than meaningless semantic primitives seems to me to be neither of those things. That was the view that prevailed in the early days of Esperanto, before everyone realised it actually explains very little of why Esperanto works in the way it does.