Mesaĝoj: 35
Lingvo: English
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-08 19:33:17
The best exposition of iva that I have seen is given in Kalocsay and Waringhien. I just had some correspondence with a British E-ist whose view is that root -iva refers to something more potential than would be indicated by the use of pov. The latter (acording to him) includes the idea of something not being hindered, so a stronger idea than the potential expressed by iv. Pov being a word in itself, iva connotes a closer connection to the root.
Words ending in it are adjectives, and the specific type of thing that it suits most is given in section 354 of Kalocsay and Waringhien. Thus it would not be suitable for roots such as kat.
The definitions include pov because functionally it makes little difference. Nevertheless it has a use, which is why K&C give an exposition of it. The nearest thing they have to a definition is something I have already quoted.
I just came across a use of iva on the UEA website, no less. It is in the headline to Paul Gubbins' review of Boris Kolker's textbook:
http://katalogo.uea.org/index.php?inf=4296&id=...
Here iva is used as a root in itself. I am pleased to see this evolution of E-o in action as a living language, abstracting from the many roots that end in iva.
So far as diligence goes, I think I may say that I have exercised it already. I did not select my correspondents for their views on this subject. But people preaching diligence should practise it themselves, for example by tracking down the uses of iva by Kalocsay.
Words ending in it are adjectives, and the specific type of thing that it suits most is given in section 354 of Kalocsay and Waringhien. Thus it would not be suitable for roots such as kat.
The definitions include pov because functionally it makes little difference. Nevertheless it has a use, which is why K&C give an exposition of it. The nearest thing they have to a definition is something I have already quoted.
I just came across a use of iva on the UEA website, no less. It is in the headline to Paul Gubbins' review of Boris Kolker's textbook:
http://katalogo.uea.org/index.php?inf=4296&id=...
Here iva is used as a root in itself. I am pleased to see this evolution of E-o in action as a living language, abstracting from the many roots that end in iva.
So far as diligence goes, I think I may say that I have exercised it already. I did not select my correspondents for their views on this subject. But people preaching diligence should practise it themselves, for example by tracking down the uses of iva by Kalocsay.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-08 21:49:36
How does Gubbins' use of -iv- differ in meaning from 'kapabla', except that it rhymes with "PIV"? And if the meaning differs from kapabla, then I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the headline.
I assume the PAG is the book you are referring to when you speak of Kalocsay and Waringhien. I would gladly look up the passages you cite, although I do not plan ever to use the -iv- ending in any case. However, I do not have access to a copy of the PAG, as I do not own it and do not have any local friends who own it, and it is not online (to my knowledge). If you wish to type out what they said about -iv-, I would be glad to read it, but since I don't have access to the source document, I am unable to research it further without outside help.
As far as I am concerned, those who wish to add new elements to the language have the burden of proof in justifying that, as opposed to those who are content with the current set of suffixes. In any case, it doesn't matter much what I say, because when someone defends a new word partially by saying that it's more poetic than existing words, there's really no use in arguing with that, as emotional arguments can't be refuted.
Pov being a word in itself, iva connotes a closer connection to the root.I do not really understand what you are trying to say here. In classical Esperanto, there is no difference between roots and affixes, as they are all considered almost as individual "words" (see the preface to "La puzlo Esperanto"). pov/, eks-, -in-, and -o are all equally "words" in Esperanto, according to Zamenhof. And in any case, if this is your view, can I assume that you are also a proponent of creating a new masculine suffix, because you don't like using vir- as a prefix and -in- as a suffix, since vir/ is also a root, and therefore suffix -in- indicates a closer connection to the root than prefix (which is also a root) vir-?
I assume the PAG is the book you are referring to when you speak of Kalocsay and Waringhien. I would gladly look up the passages you cite, although I do not plan ever to use the -iv- ending in any case. However, I do not have access to a copy of the PAG, as I do not own it and do not have any local friends who own it, and it is not online (to my knowledge). If you wish to type out what they said about -iv-, I would be glad to read it, but since I don't have access to the source document, I am unable to research it further without outside help.
As far as I am concerned, those who wish to add new elements to the language have the burden of proof in justifying that, as opposed to those who are content with the current set of suffixes. In any case, it doesn't matter much what I say, because when someone defends a new word partially by saying that it's more poetic than existing words, there's really no use in arguing with that, as emotional arguments can't be refuted.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-09 09:19:35
In poetry it is not just a matter of evoking emotions with words. That is why, to say that arguments based on the poetic value of a word cannot be answered as they are emotional, is false and displays ignorance of what poetry involves.
As I put it to a senior Esperantist at the Somera Festivalo last summer (who nodded vigorously in response): 'La disciplino estas ujo por signifoj.' The translators of the New English Bible Greek Testament said something about words in a sentence which could be applied to roots within words in aggutinative languages in Esperanto: a word is the centre of cluster of meanings and associations, and its position in a sentence determines what aspect is in the foreground. Thus, with iv the root is in the foreground, the notion of capability is in the background, more so than if pov were used. This latter is my interpretation of correspondence I had with a British E-ist that I referred to earlier.
But the point I made with my citation of the website of the UEA was not about the meaning of iv: it was rather that iv already has a respectable position in E-io, and so has little to prove. I now believe that it arose as a new affix (and is treated on te UEA webpage as a root, as E-o permits) precisely because so many roots have it as an ending.
But it is not only a literary or poetic matter. Increasingly I find it referred to as a part of scientific terminology. Thus the Wells vortaro lists it among technical suffixes, along with olog and oz. I have found instances of its use in the documents of the Internacia Kongreaa Universitato, for example in 2005 we have kognitiva, lerniva, kontrastiva, konservativa, kreiva.
The quotations I have already given from PAG should be sufficient for anyone who has an open mind on the issue to establish that a case can be made for the use of iv. Nothing would be gained by further quotations. It seems to me that I have made a good case to keep the possibility of using iv open to anyone with an open mind, and that will suffice.
As I put it to a senior Esperantist at the Somera Festivalo last summer (who nodded vigorously in response): 'La disciplino estas ujo por signifoj.' The translators of the New English Bible Greek Testament said something about words in a sentence which could be applied to roots within words in aggutinative languages in Esperanto: a word is the centre of cluster of meanings and associations, and its position in a sentence determines what aspect is in the foreground. Thus, with iv the root is in the foreground, the notion of capability is in the background, more so than if pov were used. This latter is my interpretation of correspondence I had with a British E-ist that I referred to earlier.
But the point I made with my citation of the website of the UEA was not about the meaning of iv: it was rather that iv already has a respectable position in E-io, and so has little to prove. I now believe that it arose as a new affix (and is treated on te UEA webpage as a root, as E-o permits) precisely because so many roots have it as an ending.
But it is not only a literary or poetic matter. Increasingly I find it referred to as a part of scientific terminology. Thus the Wells vortaro lists it among technical suffixes, along with olog and oz. I have found instances of its use in the documents of the Internacia Kongreaa Universitato, for example in 2005 we have kognitiva, lerniva, kontrastiva, konservativa, kreiva.
The quotations I have already given from PAG should be sufficient for anyone who has an open mind on the issue to establish that a case can be made for the use of iv. Nothing would be gained by further quotations. It seems to me that I have made a good case to keep the possibility of using iv open to anyone with an open mind, and that will suffice.
mnlg (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-09 10:34:33
If your intention is to prove that Esperanto has flaws, then of course you are going to "make a good case". Why are there roots with substantive value and other roots with verbal value? Why is a "kuranto" a human by default? Why is it u -» ŭ but not i -» i˘ ? Why does "de" incorporate so many meanings (agent, possession, provenience, author, etc)?
Enthusiastic speakers, right after the end of their course, as they begin to get a good grasp of the language, often feel it is the next logical step to overcome those holes and stains that sometimes appear in Esperanto grammar. I, too, felt like that. I used to marvel at the resistance I met when I repeated "vigorously", that far has all the rights in the world to exist (now I don't care at all).
With time I learned that the language does not need to be perfect, and perfectness is sometimes too subjective, and that in the long run it is much better for Esperanto to keep its core grammar as untouched as possible. I find it a small price to pay if I have to use more than one word to say "unu el la gepatroj" or "kapabla krei".
I find the alleged value of -iv- much too weak to justify a new suffix. For most intents and purposes it is perfectly substituted by all the other solutions already mentioned. When it's not, and you really need a finer and much more specific nuance, there's a good chance you have to be verbose anyway in the rest of your document, so you could express that with more than one word without much of a loss.
All this being said, of course feel free to use -iv-. If it is really important, and it will catch up, it will slowly become a part of the language and everyone will use it. To me, however, it is, at best, of extremely marginal importance, and it represents a way to deal with the language that at this stage I see as inherently harmful, even with the best intentions.
Enthusiastic speakers, right after the end of their course, as they begin to get a good grasp of the language, often feel it is the next logical step to overcome those holes and stains that sometimes appear in Esperanto grammar. I, too, felt like that. I used to marvel at the resistance I met when I repeated "vigorously", that far has all the rights in the world to exist (now I don't care at all).
With time I learned that the language does not need to be perfect, and perfectness is sometimes too subjective, and that in the long run it is much better for Esperanto to keep its core grammar as untouched as possible. I find it a small price to pay if I have to use more than one word to say "unu el la gepatroj" or "kapabla krei".
I find the alleged value of -iv- much too weak to justify a new suffix. For most intents and purposes it is perfectly substituted by all the other solutions already mentioned. When it's not, and you really need a finer and much more specific nuance, there's a good chance you have to be verbose anyway in the rest of your document, so you could express that with more than one word without much of a loss.
All this being said, of course feel free to use -iv-. If it is really important, and it will catch up, it will slowly become a part of the language and everyone will use it. To me, however, it is, at best, of extremely marginal importance, and it represents a way to deal with the language that at this stage I see as inherently harmful, even with the best intentions.
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-09 17:14:03
Claude Piron would agree with you, judging by correspondence I just received from him. But, as you have, he expressed himself tactfully, even saying that age and customs might influence his view and left the future open. As in many discussions, a conciliatory manner will go a long way, whereas an adversarial style is counter-productive.
As you say, time will tell how useful iv might be. Its value will be decided in the end by usage. Iru en paco.
As you say, time will tell how useful iv might be. Its value will be decided in the end by usage. Iru en paco.
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-09 19:09:00
I treat it as instructive that although Kalocsay and Waringhien mentioned -iv- in their work (first published in 1935), it still has not gained widespread acceptance. I think that few speakers feel a strong need for this ending.
And like mnlg, I also felt that "far" was necessary when I was a beginner. I happily used the preposition "na". ("Mi vidas na Bill" = "Mi vidas Bill-n" or simply "Mi vidas Bill"). I left these things behind as I became more experienced and lost my belief in their necessity.
I would never write an angry letter to Gubbins or MacGill or anyone else over their use of -iv-. They have a right to choose to use that ending, even as I reject that choice for myself. Every Esperanto speaker has a right to speak however they want to,and see if it catches on. I can feel free to invent a new suffix -aĥ-, meaning "to do something while feeling a great sense of dismay", and use it, and see if it catches on. But in general I am suspicious of attempts to add suffixes. Beyond the fundamento, only three suffixes have ever been made official, and two of those three in the early days of Esperanto [-aĉ- (1909), -end- (1953), and -ism- (1919)].
But I would never teach -iv- to my students, and I would never make use of it in a teaching text. I believe teaching texts should remain conservative in their use of language and use/teach only the language that everyone can agree upon, without controversial elements.
And like mnlg, I also felt that "far" was necessary when I was a beginner. I happily used the preposition "na". ("Mi vidas na Bill" = "Mi vidas Bill-n" or simply "Mi vidas Bill"). I left these things behind as I became more experienced and lost my belief in their necessity.
I would never write an angry letter to Gubbins or MacGill or anyone else over their use of -iv-. They have a right to choose to use that ending, even as I reject that choice for myself. Every Esperanto speaker has a right to speak however they want to,and see if it catches on. I can feel free to invent a new suffix -aĥ-, meaning "to do something while feeling a great sense of dismay", and use it, and see if it catches on. But in general I am suspicious of attempts to add suffixes. Beyond the fundamento, only three suffixes have ever been made official, and two of those three in the early days of Esperanto [-aĉ- (1909), -end- (1953), and -ism- (1919)].
But I would never teach -iv- to my students, and I would never make use of it in a teaching text. I believe teaching texts should remain conservative in their use of language and use/teach only the language that everyone can agree upon, without controversial elements.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-10 02:38:54
Miland:The translators of the New English Bible Greek Testament said something about words in a sentence which could be applied to roots within words in agglutinative languages (like) Esperanto...On a slightly off-topic note, I recently read an article (I THINK it was by Piron), in which the author made the case that Esperanto actually is not agglutinative, but is, in fact, even more isolating than Chinese. I think the distinction was made that in agglutinative languages the bulk of affixes cannot stand on their own, whereas in Esperanto nearly ALL of the affixes can be used without being attached to a root.
It was a pretty interesting article, and I wish I'd bookmarked it. If I can find it again, I'll post a link.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-10 02:45:13
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-10 10:53:25
Yes, this one's an eye-opener. There is a treasure trove of articles by Piron at the following site:
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/
mnlg (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-10 13:00:16
A great article, thanks. Now I feel better knowing that there are good reasons to avoid saying "ol" in "antaŭ ol", as I have been doing for a while 