讯息： 20
语言: English
cFlat7 (显示个人资料) 2014年2月28日下午2:20:24
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2014年3月1日下午1:23:47
You may not have a dictionary with you so how is a word-building idea going to help? All you have is the root 'martel', the suffix 'ist', and the grammatical ending. You have no idea upon which word (i.e. root class) the word-building theory chose to create this wordBut then how would you know that 'martel' is (according to the theory) a substantive root?
Of course, if all roots in compounds were printed in different colours according to which grammatical class they belonged to, then this would give you guidance as to the meaning of an unfamiliar compound. But nobody uses different colours to signal this.
And in what colour would your print vest in mi lasis mian mantelon en la vestejo de la noktoklubo and vest en la sinjorina moŝto atendas vin en sia vestejo - or lum en la malantaŭaj lumoj de la aŭto prilumis lian vizaĝon pale en la nigra nokto?
cFlat7 (显示个人资料) 2014年3月2日下午2:40:47
If the language had been built with your word-building approach, you would have an uncertainty with every root, until you had memorized all the roots and derived words in the language, as there would be no reliable general rule to fall back on. And as it depends on intuition, there would likely be a lot more oddities to have to contend with.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2014年3月3日下午12:30:02
From which word comes first you can expect certain derivations using the same root to have certain meanings, though that may not be totally predictable (there's a good deal of pragmatism in the meaning of derivations). But many of the derivations will be helpfully defined (as usage has established them) in the same entry.
It is an interesting question whether in reasonably large corpus of Esperanto the head word in the dictionary is most often the part of speech that is statistically most common in Esperanto (and also the part of speech that is most common for the corresponding notion in other languages).
As I have commented previously, in the case of Korekta/Korekti, the Tekstaro gives the frequencies of verbal and adjectival usage of korekt as being practically identical.
It seems a totally unnecessary theoretical complication to go beyond the head word in the dictionary to saying that the root actually is the head word minus the relevant part of speech, ie to saying that martel=martelo. This means that to refer to the panel-beating section you can't say, as is convenient, martelejo, the ejo kie oni martelas.
cFlat7 (显示个人资料) 2014年3月3日下午1:47:40
But your issue, though, seems to be with the dictionary editors and with those that have extended the collection of roots beyond the original set in Zamanhof's Funamento; e.g. the Akademio, who compiled the Baza Radikaro, which establishes 2500 of the most common roots in the Language.
http://eo.wikisource.org/wiki/Baza_Radikaro_Oficia...
It would be interesting, though, to find out if your complaint is broader than just a handful of cases.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2014年3月4日下午12:45:17
Unfortunately, I do not have the paper bookmarked, but Professor Wim Jansen has also come out recently against the tri-partite classification of roots. If I find the link I'll post it.
All I ask for is a simple description of word-building in Esperanto which does not involve the contortions of PAG, and under which korekta/korekti are validated as being part of a general phenomenon, and not an exception.
The attribution of a root to a grammatical class cannot be divorced from meaning, and anybody can see that it is only words that have meaning (pace the UV).
To say that 'martelo' is a noun is trivial. In Esperanto it can't be anything but a noun if it ends in 'o'. But to say that 'martel' is a noun is to enter into an Alice in Wonderland world where people speak in roots (lexical ones).
It is worth considering what happens with those roots in Esperanto that are also words.
Do we have one system for establishing the meaning of (for example) peri, pero, pera, and another system for martelo, marteli, martele?
Do we need to establish a specific grammatical class for a root that can be used as a word in order to understand derivations?
erinja (显示个人资料) 2014年3月4日下午1:21:23
sudanglo:All I ask for is a simple description of word-building in Esperanto which does not involve the contortions of PAG, and under which korekta/korekti are validated as being part of a general phenomenon, and not an exception.I doubt such a thing exists. Seems like your own system is basically "Memorize each one individually according to what seems good to you, and it doesn't really matter just so long as I'm allowed to call something that is factually accurate 'korekta'"
No thanks. I'd rather memorize the general rule and know that there are a couple words that don't fit neatly into the mold, than to throw away the mold and memorize everything individually. You could call it a rule of thumb rather than a strict "rule" if you like, and everyone knows that rules of thumb work usually, but not every single time. Seems like you're rigging the game if you say "I will only accept the outcome of this if it rules the way I prefer on a single arbitrarily-chosen borderline case".
Otherwise you have to say, well, korekta as a word is an adjective, and so I have to say "korektigi" for the verb form. I am not sure why you differentiate between words and roots. Seems like Zamenhof said that roots ARE words. And if you say that a "word" is a root plus a suffix, then you are essentially subscribing to the root class theory, because you have to say either that korekti came from korekta, or vice versa.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2014年3月6日下午12:56:18
so long as I'm allowed to call something that is factually accurate 'korekta'"No, I don't think that is what korekta means. It means more like conforming to the rules (there is a frame of reference in which something is korekta).
The reason why I wish to have korekta validated is not just that it has been common use for over 100 years (alongside korekti) and I don't like the idea of classifying it as an exception, but that I also don't see korekta and ĝusta as exact equivalents, and I don't want someone telling me to use ĝusta when I actually mean korekta
cFlat7 (显示个人资料) 2014年3月6日下午1:46:27
However, your theory could be used to account for how some of the exceptions might have been (improperly) added to the language. So instead of your theory replacing or competing with Zamenhof's own word-building approach, perhaps it can be used to explain and help remember the exceptions.
Rikat (显示个人资料) 2014年3月6日下午7:39:38
sudanglo:There is a link to Jansen's article in this related Lernu thread.
Unfortunately, I do not have the paper bookmarked, but Professor Wim Jansen has also come out recently against the tri-partite classification of roots. If I find the link I'll post it.