Späť na obsah
Odpovedať

Esperanto root classes

od Bemused, 10. augusta 2013

Príspevky: 73

Jazyk: English

Bemused (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 5:44:37

" For example, in Esperanto, the noun krono means "a crown", and by replacing the nominal o with a verbal i one derives the verb kroni "to crown". However, if one were to begin with the verb kroni, "to crown", and replace the verbal i with a nominal o to create a noun, the resulting meaning would not be "a coronation", but rather the original "crown". This is because the root kron- is inherently a noun: With the nominal ending -o the word simply means the thing itself, whereas with the verbal -i it means an action performed with the thing. To get the name for the performance of the action, it is necessary to use the suffix -ado, which retains the verbal idea. Thus it is necessary to know which part of speech each Esperanto root belongs to."*

Is this so?

*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Esperan...
Retrieved 10 August 2013
Bold italics not in original text.

tommjames (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 8:07:11

Thus it is necessary to know which part of speech each Esperanto root belongs to."*

Is this so?
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.

sudanglo (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 8:13:46

The grammarians have produced this theory that Esperanto roots (the ones that need a finaĵo) have a certain grammatical class, and whilst this seems to explain much of how the language works, there are cases where this analysis leads to difficulties.

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 (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 16:58:08

Certainly, I have not read everything there is to know about Esperanto grammar, but sudanglo's position definitely seems to be a minority position. Almost everything else I have read about E-o grammar, by E-ists, for instructional purposes, refers to root classes. In fact, it has only been in sudanglo's posts here in lernu! that I have ever read the concept seriously questioned. As I have mentioned in other threads, the concept of root classes to me makes eminent good sense and simplifies the learning task wonderfully. Without knowing the class of a root, I might be floundering.

RiotNrrd (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 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 (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 19:30:44

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).

bartlett22183 (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 2013 19:40:54

(Please excuse if this shows up twice. I am not sure whether I clicked the right button or not. malgajo.gif )

RiotNrrd:
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. ...
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."

RiotNrrd (Zobraziť profil) 10. augusta 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 (Zobraziť profil) 11. augusta 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 (Zobraziť profil) 11. augusta 2013 11:40:01

My comment about the use of common sense obviously bears the qualification - having learnt the meanings of words from the dictionary then apply your common sense (ie knowledge of the world) as to meanings of their derivatives.

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?

Nahor