Aportes: 73
Idioma: English
Kirilo81 (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 12:11:48
I don't doubt that most of the effects PAG describes via "morfemefiko" are real -in fact they are necessary to understand the different word formations-, I just think that PAG's theoretical concept is artificial, complicated and not adequate.
In my thesis, I hope I have shown, that you can describe Esperanto word formation very well by the means of traditional linguistics, and often these concepts are superior, senforta being a good example: sen does not make fort' a substantive by a mysterious "morfemefiko", but you can simple combine a preposition only with a noun*, so the only reasonable interpretation is (sen forto)+a, not sene forta or the like.
*Or principally with a verb, but sen doesn't make sense here. But have a look of the examples of antaŭ+X+o, which can be very ambiguous - and (here a note for sudanglo) would not be understandable if the root would not have an inherent preferred word class.
There are/were many great scholars which doubted the root class approach, e.g. Szerdahelyi, Janton, DucGoninaz (so this is not trolling at all), but in fact their alternatives mostly were just reformulations (e.g. "a root selecting primarily a substantive" instead of "substantive root" - of course a root can't be a substantive, but only a full word, but that's really just the wording).
In my thesis, I hope I have shown, that you can describe Esperanto word formation very well by the means of traditional linguistics, and often these concepts are superior, senforta being a good example: sen does not make fort' a substantive by a mysterious "morfemefiko", but you can simple combine a preposition only with a noun*, so the only reasonable interpretation is (sen forto)+a, not sene forta or the like.
*Or principally with a verb, but sen doesn't make sense here. But have a look of the examples of antaŭ+X+o, which can be very ambiguous - and (here a note for sudanglo) would not be understandable if the root would not have an inherent preferred word class.
There are/were many great scholars which doubted the root class approach, e.g. Szerdahelyi, Janton, DucGoninaz (so this is not trolling at all), but in fact their alternatives mostly were just reformulations (e.g. "a root selecting primarily a substantive" instead of "substantive root" - of course a root can't be a substantive, but only a full word, but that's really just the wording).
tommjames (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 12:26:01
sudanglo:No matter how much you try, you can never explain korekta and korekti as making sense on the basis of a single root class for korekt.Actually you can. It's very easy, all you have to do is say that when an adjective derives from a verbal root the meaning of the adjective must be in some sense related to the meaning of the root.
Though "corrective" is clearly the meaning that most closely corresponds to a verb meaning "to correct", there's no reason, other than the degree to which you want to be strict on the elasticity of the relation between the adjective and the verb, not to allow the meaning of "correct". As far as I know the theory does not prohibit it.
Again it comes back to the point I keep making that the opposition to korekta for ĝusta is not about conforming to theory, necessarily anyway, but about bringing greater logical consistency to the language. "Corrective" is the most logical meaning. "Correct" much less so, hence the opposition. You don't need to have even heard of root-classes to understand, and presumably (hopefully!) agree on that point.
sudanglo:And how do you explain (under the theory) that various roots have changed their grammatical class over time if the grammatical class is such an inherent property of the root.For many roots the class will be very obvious, self evident even. For others it will be less so and may require some analysis of usage in order to determine what its sense is. That analysis may be poorly undertaken, or else may become outmoded by changes in usage over time, which may lead to reclassification.
Perhaps you will say that if a root requires analysis of usage in order to determine what class it should belong to then you can't claim that the classification stems from its inherent properties. That's an argument I sympathise with to some extent, but it really depends how you want to define inherent properties. Personally I have no qualms letting usage be the arbiter, in some cases.
sudanglo:astrologersUp to your old tricks I see.
Note that accusations of pseudo-science (unjustified) won't change the value of the contributions of grammarians and linguists to the field of language study. 
EldanarLambetur (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 12:44:26
I'm not sure why everyone's having such a hard time agreeing with Sudanglo.
He's not asking you to throw away the useful bit of the root class theory. The useful bit is knowing that there is some base meaning, allowing you to derive words with more predictability. Most of the time, the way of thinking that Sudanglo propounds will produce the same answer. But those times that the root theory says "it must be this!" in the face of obviously different usage, Sudanglo's way shows why that form or meaning is perfectly logical.
But you don't have to take either of our words for it.
I generally regard the PMEG as far more readable and sensible than any Esperanto grammar guides I've tried to read. And below is what it says on the matter (I'll translate, but provide the original below).
When discussing inherent properties of roots, and why "kombilo" is a comb, and "broso" is a brush:
"Many prefer to say that it's about different base words, from which we derive during word-building. They prefer to say that with "BROS-" we go from the base word "broso", which is the name of a tool, and form the verb "brosi" from it (by substitution of O for I). However, with "KOMB-" according to this reasoning, the base word is "kombi" (which of course names the action [of combing]). Out of "kombi" we can make the action O-word "kombo" (by substitution of I for O), and the word for the concerned tool, "kombilo" (by the addition of the suffix IL and O-ending). Because of the fact that the base form in one case is an O-word, but in the other case it's a verb, the word-building results in words of different types. That manner of clarification is perfectly good, and probably for many, more natural.
This kind of talk about base-forms in essence is the same as talk about roots with their own meaning. If a root is according to its meaning, an action, then one naturally sees its verbal form as its base form. If a root expresses a quality, then one naturally sees the A-ending form as its base form. If the root meaning is neither, then one naturally regards its O-form as the base form. Also, following in PMEG many wordbuilding phenomena are presented in the way that one makes a word out of another via substitution of the ending [finaĵo]."
The reason it's more natural, is because it explains how Esperanto is naturally used, rather than imposing "logical" rules, making perfectly natural constructions less "logical" according to that system. You ask a single beginner not exposed to the system of root class restrictions what "korekta" means, and you won't hear "corrective" back.
He's not asking you to throw away the useful bit of the root class theory. The useful bit is knowing that there is some base meaning, allowing you to derive words with more predictability. Most of the time, the way of thinking that Sudanglo propounds will produce the same answer. But those times that the root theory says "it must be this!" in the face of obviously different usage, Sudanglo's way shows why that form or meaning is perfectly logical.
But you don't have to take either of our words for it.
I generally regard the PMEG as far more readable and sensible than any Esperanto grammar guides I've tried to read. And below is what it says on the matter (I'll translate, but provide the original below).
When discussing inherent properties of roots, and why "kombilo" is a comb, and "broso" is a brush:
"Many prefer to say that it's about different base words, from which we derive during word-building. They prefer to say that with "BROS-" we go from the base word "broso", which is the name of a tool, and form the verb "brosi" from it (by substitution of O for I). However, with "KOMB-" according to this reasoning, the base word is "kombi" (which of course names the action [of combing]). Out of "kombi" we can make the action O-word "kombo" (by substitution of I for O), and the word for the concerned tool, "kombilo" (by the addition of the suffix IL and O-ending). Because of the fact that the base form in one case is an O-word, but in the other case it's a verb, the word-building results in words of different types. That manner of clarification is perfectly good, and probably for many, more natural.
This kind of talk about base-forms in essence is the same as talk about roots with their own meaning. If a root is according to its meaning, an action, then one naturally sees its verbal form as its base form. If a root expresses a quality, then one naturally sees the A-ending form as its base form. If the root meaning is neither, then one naturally regards its O-form as the base form. Also, following in PMEG many wordbuilding phenomena are presented in the way that one makes a word out of another via substitution of the ending [finaĵo]."
The reason it's more natural, is because it explains how Esperanto is naturally used, rather than imposing "logical" rules, making perfectly natural constructions less "logical" according to that system. You ask a single beginner not exposed to the system of root class restrictions what "korekta" means, and you won't hear "corrective" back.
EldanarLambetur (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 12:45:16
Original Esperanto text:
Multaj preferas diri, ke temas pri diversaj bazaj vortoj, de kiuj oni deiras en la vortfarado. Ili preferas diri, ke ĉe BROS oni deiras de la baza vorto broso, kiu estas nomo de ilo, kaj formas el ĝi la verbon brosi (per anstataŭigo de O per I). Ĉe KOMB tamen, laŭ tia klarigomaniero, la baza vorto estas kombi (kiu kompreneble nomas agon). El kombi oni povas fari la agan O-vorton kombo (per anstataŭigo de I per O), kaj la vorton por la koncerna ilo, kombilo (per aldono de la sufikso IL kaj O-finaĵo). Pro tio, ke la baza formo en unu okazo estas O-vorto, sed en la alia okazo estas verbo, la vortfarado rezultigas diversspecajn vortojn. Tia klarigomaniero estas tute bona, kaj verŝajne por multaj pli natura. Tia parolo pri bazformoj esence estas la sama afero, kiel parolado pri propra signifo de radikoj. Se radiko estas laŭ sia signifo aga, tiam oni nature vidas por ĝi la verban formon kiel bazan. Se radiko estas eca, tiam oni nature vidas la A-finaĵan formon kiel bazan. Se radiko signife estas nek aga, nek eca, tiam oni nature rigardas ĝian O-formon kiel bazan. Ankaŭ ĉi-poste en PMEG multaj vortfaraj fenomenoj estas prezentataj tiel, ke oni faras unu vorton el alia vorto ekz. per anstataŭigo de la finaĵo.
Multaj preferas diri, ke temas pri diversaj bazaj vortoj, de kiuj oni deiras en la vortfarado. Ili preferas diri, ke ĉe BROS oni deiras de la baza vorto broso, kiu estas nomo de ilo, kaj formas el ĝi la verbon brosi (per anstataŭigo de O per I). Ĉe KOMB tamen, laŭ tia klarigomaniero, la baza vorto estas kombi (kiu kompreneble nomas agon). El kombi oni povas fari la agan O-vorton kombo (per anstataŭigo de I per O), kaj la vorton por la koncerna ilo, kombilo (per aldono de la sufikso IL kaj O-finaĵo). Pro tio, ke la baza formo en unu okazo estas O-vorto, sed en la alia okazo estas verbo, la vortfarado rezultigas diversspecajn vortojn. Tia klarigomaniero estas tute bona, kaj verŝajne por multaj pli natura. Tia parolo pri bazformoj esence estas la sama afero, kiel parolado pri propra signifo de radikoj. Se radiko estas laŭ sia signifo aga, tiam oni nature vidas por ĝi la verban formon kiel bazan. Se radiko estas eca, tiam oni nature vidas la A-finaĵan formon kiel bazan. Se radiko signife estas nek aga, nek eca, tiam oni nature rigardas ĝian O-formon kiel bazan. Ankaŭ ĉi-poste en PMEG multaj vortfaraj fenomenoj estas prezentataj tiel, ke oni faras unu vorton el alia vorto ekz. per anstataŭigo de la finaĵo.
tommjames (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 15:35:03
EldanarLambetur :I'm not sure why everyone's having such a hard time agreeing with Sudanglo.I can't speak for others, but in my own case it's the same reason I have a hard time agreeing with anybody who uses hyperbole, demeaning language and occasional misrepresentations to reject a widely held tenet. Sudanglo doesn't just claim that the theory has complications, or that it is merely sub-par, but that it is false and needs replacing. This is the part I most disagree with.
EldanarLambetur :He's not asking you to throw away the useful bit of the root class theory. The useful bit is knowing that there is some base meaningHmm, from what I've read in his forum posts that is exactly what he's asking us to throw away. Among many similar quotes I could dig up I found this:
sudanglo:I'm sure both PAG and PMEG agree for example that roots (not words) belong to a specific grammatical class for example or have a certain meaning. This seems to me quite plainly wrong, and contradicted by usage.Which I think is pretty clear, unless we're going to get into a discussion about what the meaning of "meaning" is.
EldanarLambetur:You ask a single beginner not exposed to the system of root class restrictions what "korekta" means, and you won't hear "corrective" back.The key word being "beginner". An experienced speaker with a deeper understanding and greater familiarity with Esperanto's word building logic may well allow for "correct", but I think in general they would confirm "corrective" as the more proper meaning. That could be the case regardless of whether they bind themselves by the "shackles" of root-classes.
EldanarLambetur (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 17:22:56
The key word being "beginner".That was kinda my point. I was refuting the claim that 'korekta' is naturally logically only 'corrective' (but also more generally any meaning that competent usage attests yet the root class theory rejects).
Instead I was suggesting that such restricted analyses only seem more logical when you've already accepted root classes as the way to go. And that unexposed beginners naturally use and understand for example 'korekta' when they have the most basic grasp of Esperanto's word building. Much like those more experienced who don't mind defying root classes
EldanarLambetur (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 17:46:42
tommjames:While it is a fallacy to argue with hyperbole and misrepresentation, it's also a fallacy to assume an argument containing fallacies is necessarily invalid. Besides, exaggeration and dramatic flair make grammar all the more amusing if not taken seriouslyEldanarLambetur :I'm not sure why everyone's having such a hard time agreeing with Sudanglo.I can't speak for others, but in my own case it's the same reason I have a hard time agreeing with anybody who uses hyperbole, demeaning language and occasional misrepresentations to reject a widely held tenet. Sudanglo doesn't just claim that the theory has complications, or that it is merely sub-par, but that it is false and needs replacing. This is the part I most disagree with.
Certainly it sounds as if Sudanglo is asking you to throw away the underlying principle of root class theory, but definitely not the useful by-product of it,just as my PMEG quote suggests. Using base words from which we derive others by substitution, gives us the same power that assuming a root class does (since we're just assuming a base word of a certain class), but it gives us the added flexibility that in compounds we aren't constrained to assume the root class, and make exceptions, instead we can say, ah context makes it clear we are deriving from the o-form instead of the usual base i-form here for example.
tommjames (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 20:15:31
EldanarLambetur:That was kinda my point. I was refuting the claim that 'korekta' is naturally logically only 'corrective' (but also more generally any meaning that competent usage attests yet the root class theory rejects)I don't think the assumptions of a beginner necessarily show what's "natural". I imagine a lot of beginners will just look at korekta and assume it means correct because it looks similar. They're not yet accustomed to the fact the root korekt- is verbal (evident from usage). If they were, then the meaning of 'corrective', which actually is the more natural meaning, would probably have been more likely to occur to them.
I repeat, the objection to "korekta" for "correct" has no necessary basis in the desire or obligation to adhere to some theory. To pretend it does is to simply misrepresent the reality of the situation.
EldanarLambetur:such restricted analyses only seem more logical when you've already accepted root classes as the way to goCompletely disagree. The fact is, even if root classes didn't exist, 'corrective' would still be the meaning that is more natural for the adverbial form of korekt-. An analysis of a large selection of the most common adjectives formed out of verbal roots should bear that out quite easily.
EldanarLambetur:it's also a fallacy to assume an argument containing fallacies is necessarily invalidQuite right, and apologies if I gave the impression that was the basis of my disagreement with sudanglo's rejection of root classes. The question was about why we're "having a hard time agreeing", not "why don't you agree". I'm sure even the sharpest of minds would not find it the easiest of tasks to agree publicly with an argument, even if they secretly knew it to be right, presented in such an overstated way.
As it happens, as this debate draws on I actually find myself coming round to the view that the vort-deriva theory has a bit more going for it that I initially supposed. But whatever advantages it has over the established theory seems to be being greatly overplayed. Just like the attacks on that theory.
bartlett22183 (Mostrar perfil) 10 de abril de 2014 21:19:09
Without root classes, I am almost hopelessly lost. Without them, Esperanto becomes a bizarrity. The major consensus seems to be that root classes are an inherent part of the language, albeit that a small minority (of one?) differs. Even such a rare auxiliary language as Barnett Russell's Suma puts words (it does not have roots) into classes. Perhaps those who object to the root class theory should abandon Esperanto and adopt an auxiliary language more to their liking.
sudanglo (Mostrar perfil) 11 de abril de 2014 12:08:00
Thank you for the link to the relevant section of PMEG, Eldanar, (and also for the moral support).
Reading that section in full, I think PMEG has a foot in both camps, espousing root classes but at the same time doffing its hat to the vort-derivistoj.
I was particularly intrigued by the section on how to determining the meaning of a radiko. (Of course nobody has to have it explained to them how to determine the meaning of a word)
Kiel eltrovi la propran signifon de radiko?
Ofte la propra signifo de radiko estas pli-malpli evidenta per si mem, sed por certeco necesas zorga komparo de la diversaj uzoj de la radiko kun diversaj finaĵoj, en diversaj kunmetaĵoj k.t.p. Decida estas la O-formo de radiko, ĉar la signifo de la O-formo estas ĉiam identa al la signifo de la radiko mem.
How does this tells us that manĝ is a verbal root if the most common use of manĝo is for a meal.
How does this illuminate that we use foro/flori (a flower, to flower) but only rozo and not rozi, or shed light on the most common use of fumi (to smoke cigarettes/pipe), or clarify the pair lumo/lumi.
PS. You are not lost Bartlett, as in many cases what I am saying leads to the same result as what the root-class people are saying. You can happily believe the root-class theory and turn a blind eye to the cases that don't fit.
Reading that section in full, I think PMEG has a foot in both camps, espousing root classes but at the same time doffing its hat to the vort-derivistoj.
I was particularly intrigued by the section on how to determining the meaning of a radiko. (Of course nobody has to have it explained to them how to determine the meaning of a word)
Kiel eltrovi la propran signifon de radiko?
Ofte la propra signifo de radiko estas pli-malpli evidenta per si mem, sed por certeco necesas zorga komparo de la diversaj uzoj de la radiko kun diversaj finaĵoj, en diversaj kunmetaĵoj k.t.p. Decida estas la O-formo de radiko, ĉar la signifo de la O-formo estas ĉiam identa al la signifo de la radiko mem.
How does this tells us that manĝ is a verbal root if the most common use of manĝo is for a meal.
How does this illuminate that we use foro/flori (a flower, to flower) but only rozo and not rozi, or shed light on the most common use of fumi (to smoke cigarettes/pipe), or clarify the pair lumo/lumi.
PS. You are not lost Bartlett, as in many cases what I am saying leads to the same result as what the root-class people are saying. You can happily believe the root-class theory and turn a blind eye to the cases that don't fit.