Viestejä: 73
Kieli: English
Bemused (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 5.44.37
Is this so?
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Esperan...
Retrieved 10 August 2013
Bold italics not in original text.
tommjames (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 8.07.11
Thus it is necessary to know which part of speech each Esperanto root belongs to."*In general, yes, I agree with that statement. The alternative is simply to learn the meaning of every word separately, which of course is much more difficult for the learner. Far better to simply accept the obvious fact that roots have category, learn what those categories are, and then reap the benefits of that in terms of easier and better word-building. With experience you'll learn to handle the relatively few exceptions.
Is this so?
sudanglo (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 8.13.46
A simpler idea is that words have a different meanings, and other parts of speech are derived from these base meanings. So krono means a crown and kroni derived from krono (not from 'kron' ) means to crown.
In learning Esperanto you have to learn the meanings of words (just as in learning other languages). There is not an extra layer of acquisition (ie learning the grammatical class of a root). This is a grammarians fiction.
Usually other parts of speech and compounds are derived from the head word in the dictionary, but this is not always the case.
Senpova (powerless) for example is not derived from povi (the headword in the dictionary) but from povo. (Not difficult to get one's head around as prepositions mainly modify nouns).
Don't get your knickers in a twist over whether flor, plant, lum are verb roots or noun roots. Just use your common sense.
Edit: consider Ekflori (to blossom) Florpoto (flower pot)
bartlett22183 (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 16.58.08
RiotNrrd (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 17.35.30
sudanglo:Don't get your knickers in a twist over whether flor, plant, lum are verb roots or noun roots. Just use your common sense.Although I do agree with the root-class theory, I think sudanglo's advice here is correct. I don't think it's strictly necessary to memorize which class every single root is in, as for the vast majority of roots it should be fairly obvious. Some memorization will be required, of course, where what seems obvious is, in fact, not. Generally, though, common sense is all that is really required. Basically, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Kirilo81 (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 19.30.44
bartlett22183 (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 19.40.54
)RiotNrrd:This seems acceptable as far as it goes, but unfortunately "common sense" might take us only so far. Consider the famous / notorious pair broso / kombilo. My native English speaker "common sense" would expect kombo and not kombilo for the implement. That means I simply and literally have to expend the mental effort to learn something rather contrary to my "common sense."sudanglo:Don't get your knickers in a twist over whether flor, plant, lum are verb roots or noun roots. Just use your common sense.Although I do agree with the root-class theory, I think sudanglo's advice here is correct. I don't think it's strictly necessary to memorize which class every single root is in, as for the vast majority of roots it should be fairly obvious. ...
RiotNrrd (Näytä profiilli) 10. elokuuta 2013 21.15.24
bartlett22183:That means I simply and literally have to expend the mental effort to learn something rather contrary to my "common sense."Well, yeah, fair enough. I guess it boils down to how much work you want to do and how willing you are to make the occasional mistake. It's either treat the few anti-common-sense words as "exceptions", of a sort, and just memorize them, or memorize the root classes for every single root.
On the whole, I'm willing to make the occasional mistake, rely on common sense and experience, and forgo what otherwise sounds like way too much work. But I won't criticize those willing to put in the extra effort, certainly, as there is always value in such effort. Just not enough for me to go that route.
sudanglo (Näytä profiilli) 11. elokuuta 2013 11.13.00
flor' is a bad (or shifty) example, as it is one of the few roots which changed their class (from verbal to nominal, hence floraĵo → floro).Whilst I consider accusations of sophistry to be a compliment (thank you, Kirilo) I obviously can't accept that 'flor' changed its class (if I believe that the grammatical class of a root is a grammarians fiction).
However, it may be that in early dictionaries flori was the headword and in later ones floro.
The facts are that in the earliest texts of Esperanto you will find sentences like la rozo estas floro and kie eĉ en vintro floras miloj da rozoj. This is the raw data and if it is inconvenient for the theory of grammatical classes of roots, then maybe it is the exception that proves the rule (ie tests the rule).
Incidentally in the fifth edition of Millidge (revised) which was constantly reprinted from the 1920's to the 1950's we have headword bluo but headword ruĝa. Go figure!
sudanglo (Näytä profiilli) 11. elokuuta 2013 11.40.01
Floro meaning a flower is more useful (more likely to be needed) than floro meaning an act of flowering. Similarly flora meaning floral (derived from floro) is more useful than flora (derived from flori) meaning pertaining to act of blossoming.
However, it is not immediately obvious why the action of combing should be considered more fundamental than the action of brushing. It is perhaps more obvious that the tool for hammering should be considered more fundamental than the action of hammering.
Perhaps there is a historical or etymological reason for combing taking precedence over the implement. Perhaps at one time you could comb without a comb, whereas you couldn't hammer without a hammer, the metaphorical extension in 'hammering at the door' being a later development. What happened first was the invention of the hammer. On the other hand perhaps people combed with their fingers before the invention of the toothed comb.
In Esperanto you have to learn the uses of words. But common sense allows you guess the meanings of derived parts of speech and other compounds. Imagine someone who knew only manĝi. Which would seem more likely as a useful word - manĝo meaning a meal (with further compounding in matenmanĝo.vespermanĝo etc) or manĝo meaning an act of eating?