Więcej
Odpowiedz

Prava/vera/korekta

od Aaron94, 20 lutego 2014

Wpisy: 17

Język: English

Aaron94 (Pokaż profil) 20 lutego 2014, 21:05:15

What's the difference or is there one at all???

erinja (Pokaż profil) 20 lutego 2014, 21:10:40

The words are all different from one another and normally not interchangeable.

Prava means having the right opinion.

Vera means factually true.

Gxusta means right in the sense of without error.

Korekta - if you want to be nitpicky, strictly it means "relating to corrections". People use it to mean "correct" (= without error) -- I consider that an error but you will hear it. I personally do not use "korekta" to mean "correct". I use "gxusta" to mean "correct".

So in conclusion:
prava = right opinion
vera = true and not false
gxusta = without error

Aaron94 (Pokaż profil) 20 lutego 2014, 21:32:14

I think your definition should be in the vortaro. Very simple. Dankon

erinja (Pokaż profil) 20 lutego 2014, 21:36:36

As a definition for what? I just updated a few definitions but if you can tell me which word you looked up to get those words, I can update some more definitions.

Aaron94 (Pokaż profil) 20 lutego 2014, 22:16:25

Going from English to Eo searching "right," it has prava to mean having the right opinion like you said, but if you search prava it doesn't say it that way, it just says true, right.

For vera, is has true, veritable. I had never heard that word before so it wasn't clear to me, but now that I looked it up it makes sense. I still think factually true as you put it is better.

sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 21 lutego 2014, 12:20:26

Whether korekta is korekta is one of those issues which regularly crops up in the forums.

The word causes difficulties for certain theorists of Esperanto who hold to the view that Esperanto roots must belong to a unique grammatical class.

Therefore, the argument goes, that if korekt is a verbal root then korekta must mean corrective rather than correct - which flies in the face of a century of usage.

These theorists are also troubled by the idea that if people use korekta to mean correct then this will lead to an outbreak of people using korektigi to mean to correct rather than the usual interpretation of to have/get corrected (derived from korekti meaning to correct).

PMEG, wrongly in my view, recently removed its endorsement of korekta to mean correct because of such considerations.

However it seems most likely that people will continue to use korekta to mean correct and korekti to mean to correct.

There is a nuance between korekta and ĝusta. Korekta means more conforming to the rules, be they grammatical or social. So horloĝo ĝustas (shows the correct time) but someone kondutas korekte (behaves correctly)

Ĝustigi means to adjust, pravigi means to justify.

cFlat7 (Pokaż profil) 21 lutego 2014, 14:06:27

Maybe it is simply that 'korekt' should have been chosen as an adjectival root instead of a verbal root. Would that not make more sense than insisting that it is better to have no system (or maintaining that the majority of theorists and users of the lingvo are wrong)?

sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 22 lutego 2014, 11:48:31

There is no problem about the theory being wrong. We can happily let the grammarians and linguisticians play quietly in their own little corner (so long as they don't try to make trouble for the rest of us).

But it is a distinctly uncomfortable notion that 100 years of consistent usage is wrong.

Trying to save the theory by re-classifying kontent as an adjectival root just makes (according to the theory) all the usage of korekti wrong - it would have to be korektigi.

Of course, the whole idea that a root (lexical) has a grammatical character is obviously dubious. Nobody talks in roots we use words.

[Incidentally, in the case of those roots that b]can[/b] be used as words, nobody is fussed by the idea that they may belong to more than one grammatical class - dum la somero, dum vi fumas.]

Clearly the meanings of the various words containing a certain root are frequently derived from the meaning of one particular word containing that root. So marteli, martele, martela are derived from the meaning of martelo and frapo, frapa, frape from the meaning of frapi.

But that is not the whole story. Sometimes the meaning of a word may be derived from the meaning one word, or sometimes another word, containing that root.

Clearly senpova is derived from povo (not povi). Matenmanĝo is derived from manĝo not manĝi. Vestejo may be derived from vesti or vesto (dressing room, or a place to leave your coat in a night club). Pirata copio is derived from pirati not pirato, but pirata kostumo from pirato.

sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 22 lutego 2014, 12:42:27

The way to deal with korekta/korekti is not by condemning korekta or by reclassifying korekt. It is surely rather the way we deal with parki/parko.

Here we also have some uncertainty or limitation about derivations. So parko can not have the same relationship to parki as frapo has to frapi, because parko has been usurped to mean a place. And it is not definite whether we should speak of a mult-etaĝa aŭtoparko or aŭtoparkejo.

Incidentally you cannot determine that korekti has primacy over korekta on statistical grounds. The Tekstaro gives 81 hits for one form and 83 for the other, a difference so small as not to be significant.

In practice the whole issue about korekta and korekti does not seem to produce any real problems. We can happily leave it to context to determine whether in a particular case korekta has (deriving it from korekti) been used to mean corrective, and whether korektigi has been derived from korekti or korekta.

Incidentally, there are no hits at all in the Tekstaro for korektigi. So fears that the meaning of korekta will lead to korektigi in the sense of korekti seem unjustified, and the use of korektigi for get corrected seems to not particularly have been needed.

tommjames (Pokaż profil) 22 lutego 2014, 19:48:59

You really never miss a chance to take a pop at the root classes theory do you, eh sudanglo? okulumo.gif

sudanglo:The word causes difficulties for certain theorists of Esperanto who hold to the view that Esperanto roots must belong to a unique grammatical class.
But it's not just theorists who find korekta troubling. It's perfectly possible to have a reasonable objection to that word without any appeal to the root class theory. The fact is that the lexis of Esperanto does have a consistency to it that allows certain words to be picked out as exceptional or against the normal word-building logic. Korekta is obviously one of those words, and you don't need to be a theorist or a grammatical pedant to see that. Some knowledge and understanding of the language is enough.

Having said that I don't consider korekta for the meaning of ĝusta an error. A case can certainly be made that it's evitinda, and for sure that's an argument with a sound basis (the desire to make Esperanto more logically consistent), but it's not an argument I buy into personally. A few exceptions here and there is nothing to be feared.

Wróć do góry