メッセージ: 73
言語: English
Kirilo81 (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月13日 13:37:44
Miner is known for being an advocate of a word-based word formation theory.
I've not really decided what to follow, in my humbly opinion both theories lead to the same results, with different wordings.
I've not really decided what to follow, in my humbly opinion both theories lead to the same results, with different wordings.
Ni devas atenti interesan kaj evidentan fakton: vortaroj, inkluzive E-vortarojn, ne difinas radikojn, sed vortojnAgain I send to the Universala Vortaro, which does define roots, and words only in the cases, where the usual word formation does not predict the sense, like dot' - dot'o or firm' - firm'o.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月14日 11:28:46
both theories lead to the same resultsIn many cases, yes. But it is the cases that don't fit that reveal the strengths of the two descriptions.
By allowing that in some instances that there may be two base forms, Miner brings back into the fold korekta and korekti. Whereas the po-faced root-class theorists have to condemn korekta as 'evitenda', and get their knickers in a twist trying to explain apparent rootclass shifts.
Once you allow the word as source, there is no mystery or anything to be explained about senpova - which is obviously derived from povo - and no special pleading to explain why prilumo (prep + verb) is not derived from a substantive meaning of lumo.
In species what is going on is no different to the formation of parkejo and aŭto-parko, one derived from parki the other from parko - a very clear-cut case of the verb-form acquiring a meaning not directly derivable from the noun form - just as the adjective korekta most often has a primary meaning connected with, but not dependent on, korekti.
matus1940 (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月14日 17:30:14
morfran:The problem, I think, is that (1) many of these words are falsaj amikoj in a number of languages, and prone to getting misused because of it, (2) Esperanto is always a second language, probably not much more than a hobby for most, and (3) while Zamenhoff clearly had a system in mind, systematizing an entire language even in the age of computers and databases is a herculean task, and some words probably didn’t get incorporated as well as they could have been.The problem of Falsaj Amikoj is ever-present to one who speaks a second language, even fluently (in my case, Italian); sometimes I have found a reverse false friend, when I inadvertently use an English word as if with the meaning of its Italian cognate.
Like medieval Latin, spoken and written by people who no longer knew how to properly speak or write it, Esperanto has picked up some quirks, some of which seem to contradict the more or less logical infrastructure. Given a long enough timeline, that would probably be true of any planned language that people actually use, no matter how rigidly logical it starts out. I guess dictionaries can either be Churchillian about it and denounce fiksa as a usage up with which it will not put, or stay relevant and find a way to justify fiksa within the logic of the language.
Struggling to keep up my Esperanto and even make it a bit more fluent, I am consoled by the comparison with monks' Latin. The language of the vanished empire was made more gentle and samtempe more useful by being stretched to accommodate the here-and-now of a conversation between two persons of differing mother tongue -- pace Ciceroni! Esperanto has never had an empire (I hope none of the present debaters wishes it had); so we need not worry if our Esperanto is not the equivalent of "the Queen's English" or what have you. Vivu elasteco!
Conclusion (just my own, and only provisional): I pay attention to the possible word class of the root, but use the endings that serve to create understanding with the Esperantisto (pli-malpli samideano) with whom I am in conversation.
bartlett22183 (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月14日 20:17:40
matus1940:Conclusion (just my own, and only provisional): I pay attention to the possible word class of the root, but use the endings that serve to create understanding with the Esperantisto (pli-malpli samideano) with whom I am in conversation.You have an excellent point here, but how can we have a conversation if we are uncertain what words mean, that is, if we are uncertain what is the elementary meaning of the roots from which other (useful) words are derived?
Bemused (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月14日 23:15:41
bartlett from time to time you have mentioned that you have studied other planned languages.
Are you aware of any planned languages which are more internally consistent than Esperanto, and in which there is more agreement among speakers as to the meaning of words?
The number of exisiting speakers is not a concern, I can always increase that number by becoming one.
Are you aware of any planned languages which are more internally consistent than Esperanto, and in which there is more agreement among speakers as to the meaning of words?
The number of exisiting speakers is not a concern, I can always increase that number by becoming one.
robbkvasnak (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月14日 23:47:22
What is really funny is when this kind of thing happens in ethnic languages. Today I was watching Deutsche Welle in German and they used a word that I have used many times before without thinking much of it but since my better half is trying to learn German, I have to explain things to him. They were talking about a horrible crime in Nigeria which took place at an outdoor bus station, which is called a Busbahnhof in German. Bahnhof means "train station" since "Bahn" refers to Eisenbahn - related to the verb "bahnen" (to level or make viable), hence the noun "Bahn", "leveled way" and "Eisenbahn" - "iron leveled way" = "railroad". Well, now the bus has its own "station" but which refers to a leveled way. Maybe in reference to German roads that works (not really, there are some roads in need of repair, even in Germany, and the bus does not only use the Autobahn). But "Bahnhof" has taken on a life of its own and is now the word for "station", though I have never heard anyone say "Bushauptbahnhof".
Any way, my point is that language - even our dear green Esperanto - is never 100% logical in a mathematical sense. Though some may find this regrettable, it certainly does prove that Esperanto is a "living" language, one prone to "live" (as best a language can) with the quirky human mind, making reason out of non-sense. Like "necesejo" - a word that does not seem to bother even the staunchest "krestomatiisto" - that has its own "life" in Esperanto and even the "ĉiam komencantoj" seem to understand it pretty early on. I gather that "necesejo" comes from a verb "necesi" and not from a noun "neceso" - though maybe it is in heeding "la neceso de (la) naturo" that drives us to seek out a nececejo when we need (*necesas).
Any way, my point is that language - even our dear green Esperanto - is never 100% logical in a mathematical sense. Though some may find this regrettable, it certainly does prove that Esperanto is a "living" language, one prone to "live" (as best a language can) with the quirky human mind, making reason out of non-sense. Like "necesejo" - a word that does not seem to bother even the staunchest "krestomatiisto" - that has its own "life" in Esperanto and even the "ĉiam komencantoj" seem to understand it pretty early on. I gather that "necesejo" comes from a verb "necesi" and not from a noun "neceso" - though maybe it is in heeding "la neceso de (la) naturo" that drives us to seek out a nececejo when we need (*necesas).
nornen (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月15日 5:01:25
robbkvasnak: [...] Busbahnhof in German. [...] though I have never heard anyone say "Bushauptbahnhof". [...]I have to congratulate you on your perspicacity. I am myself a L1 German speaker and had never spotted the strangeness of "Busbahnhof". As you pointed out "Bahnhof" has acquired a life of its own, now conveying the meaning of "bahnhof-icity", i.e. lots of lines crossing, lots of people, food stalls, pidgeons, etc. There is a word for "*Bushauptbahnhof": ZOB = Zentraler Omnibusbahnhof. And let's not even mention that "omnibus" is just the dative plural of "omnis" --a dativus commodi I guess, as a bus is for everybody's commodity--.
Back to topic and the religious debate at hand. There are two kinds of grammars: normative and descriptive ones. Normative grammars are those abominations the RAE (Real Academia Espannola) and the Academie Francaise (pardon my lack of diacritics) used to publish in the past. In my opinion any normative grammar is humbug. A language is a living thing and trying to normalize it, is a futile attempt at murder.
Is it possible that this whole debate is just about two models trying to explain the same thing from different points of view?
Isn't a grammar just a scientific model? Every scientific model is valid within given limits and tries to make predictions within this limited frame. Newtonian laws and relativistic laws both describe motions and let you make useful predictions. But the people at CERN surely won't use the Newtonian model, and a billard player won't use the relativistic model.
If both approaches (roots vs words as atomic carriers of signifiés) model the same language (Esperanto) (or the same aspect of this language), why shouldn't everyone pick the model which suits him best? Scientific models manage (sometimes) to coexist peacefully, so why can these two grammatical models coexist in peace?
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月15日 10:47:32
I gather that "necesejo" comes from a verb "necesi" and not from a noun "neceso"The derivation is surely from necesa.
Oni ne 'necesas' en la necesejo (sed oni pisas en la pisejo).
Words of the form X-ejo often mean a place where one X-as, but not always.
Derivations that might be analysed as coming from the adjective are, sanktejo, frenezejo, malliberejo; coming from the noun, hundejo, monaĥejo, grenejo.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月15日 11:31:46
The practical reason why one needs a good description of the way word-building works in Esperanto (one that matches the facts) is easy to understand.
Because it is a second language used only occasionally, users of the language will need a reliable method for interpreting (and using) compound words not previously encountered and for which one does not have usage as a guide.
I have seen it said that one cannot do linguistics for Esperanto as the native speakers of Esperanto are not comparable to the native speakers of national languages.
But it seems to me not a valid objection.
Experienced Esperantists will generally have a good sense of what is well-formed and what are the meanings of novel compounds. A dependence on a body of knowledge about usage does not play the same role as it would in the case of a national language.
A wrong theory of word-building, will, if taken seriously, sow confusion. On the other hand an account which matches reality, may serve to increase confidence and cohesion in the use of the language.
Because it is a second language used only occasionally, users of the language will need a reliable method for interpreting (and using) compound words not previously encountered and for which one does not have usage as a guide.
I have seen it said that one cannot do linguistics for Esperanto as the native speakers of Esperanto are not comparable to the native speakers of national languages.
But it seems to me not a valid objection.
Experienced Esperantists will generally have a good sense of what is well-formed and what are the meanings of novel compounds. A dependence on a body of knowledge about usage does not play the same role as it would in the case of a national language.
A wrong theory of word-building, will, if taken seriously, sow confusion. On the other hand an account which matches reality, may serve to increase confidence and cohesion in the use of the language.
matus1940 (プロフィールを表示) 2014年4月16日 17:42:42
bartlett22183:You have an excellent point here, but how can we have a conversation if we are uncertain what words mean, that is, if we are uncertain what is the elementary meaning of the roots from which other (useful) words are derived?A conversation is often a search for meaning that engages both parties -- aside from casual talk with no great meaning, Esperanto itself inspires the search, and when one or both is/are uncertain, the adventure is to try together for clarity, sometimes ending with a gleeful laugh (my experience). But from this interesting forum, I am inclined to conclude that a certain uncertainty is built into Esperanto, and this isn't all bad.