Al la enhavo
Respondi

Shortening fake-suffixed words? Danĝero = Danĝo??

de marbuljon, 2015-januaro-01

Mesaĝoj: 9

Lingvo: English

marbuljon (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-01 12:28:04

I've noticed that in the dictionary here, they have some weird words or weird versions of words:
http://www.denisowski.org/Esperanto/ESPDIC/query_e...

Now I saw "danĝa - dangerous", alongside "danĝera" meaning the same thing. I realized that it gets rid of the fake -ero suffix (as in... pretend you needed to say "danĝerero" ). I've also seen this "double-suffix" in some other places, like I wrote "sensentema" somewhere once, even though "tema" doesn't mean anything on its own.

So I was just wondering what people think about this kind of thing. Do you think people should not change any vocabulary? Or is it okay to shorten words if it makes things more regular? I know that for example, there's the change from something like "civilizacio - civilizo". When it comes to those, do you use the older or the newer versions? (I know what's "legal" to change, but I'm wondering if anyone wants to change them even so, for example)

DOCENKO_Dmitrij (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-01 13:52:41

There have been projects on shortening excessively long Esperanto words.
It would be nice to make a dictionary of such shortened words.
I personally support shortening of words if it does not create ambiguity.
Esperanto is a living language, so it is natural that some words get shortened. And there is nothing wrong in expediting this process.
If to compare the same text written in English or Russian (for instance) and Esperanto, the text in Esperanto is usually longer. So it would be useful to make Esperantic words shorter where it is possible.

grizaleono (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-01 15:08:33

DOCENKO_Dmitrij:There have been projects on shortening excessively long Esperanto words.

If to compare the same text written in English or Russian (for instance) and Esperanto, the text in Esperanto is usually longer. So it would be useful to make Esperantic words shorter where it is possible.
Laŭ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Esperanto la karakteristika longo de Esperanta teksto = 0,94-oblo de la angla teksto, do Esperantaj tekstoj estas (mezume, kompreneble) pli mallongaj ol anglaj.

Christa627 (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-02 20:16:45

marbuljon:I've noticed that in the dictionary here, they have some weird words or weird versions of words:
http://www.denisowski.org/Esperanto/ESPDIC/query_e...

Now I saw "danĝa - dangerous", alongside "danĝera" meaning the same thing. I realized that it gets rid of the fake -ero suffix (as in... pretend you needed to say "danĝerero" ). I've also seen this "double-suffix" in some other places, like I wrote "sensentema" somewhere once, even though "tema" doesn't mean anything on its own.
I'm not sure what "tema" would mean by itself, but of course there is the word "ekstertema" (off-topic); would "sentema" mean "sent-em-a" (tending to feel; sensitive) or "sen-tem-a" (without a topic)? And in either case, what did you mean by "sensentema"? Unsensitive, or something else?

As for shortening words, I guess that does happen, and sometimes the short form catches on and sometimes not; the primary example I can think of is that we usually say "aŭto" instead of "aŭtomobilo"; doesn't the Akademio have something to do with it?

Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-02 20:47:30

If a root is part of the Fundamento (like danĝer') a shortened form of it is a so called formo nova, which needs officialization by the Akademio de Esperanto, otherwise it is not allowed to use.
An example for formoj novaj which are in some use but in fact are against the norm are sponta and spontana instead of the official spontanea.

BTW: Multilating easily recognizable words like danĝero → *danĝo is a bit odd, it surely doesn't serve the understanding of texts for beginners. Sperantapük no binon Volapük...

Christa627 (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-02 21:07:34

Kirilo81:Multilating easily recognizable words like danĝero → *danĝo is a bit odd, it surely doesn't serve the understanding of texts for beginners. Sperantapük no binon Volapük...
+1 LOL

Christa627 (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-03 19:31:37

I just realized that so long as there is no word "danĝo", there is no risk of confusion about the "fake suffix". It is the existence of the word that would cause confusion!

vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-05 03:13:27

Christa627:I just realized that so long as there is no word "danĝo", there is no risk of confusion about the "fake suffix". It is the existence of the word that would cause confusion!
Ya'd still have to say 'danĝerero' as danĝero could be both danĝo aux danĝo+ero depending on the age of the text or whatever convention the writer used. ('Danĝerero' don't sound so bad - the stress on the second 'er' is lovely with a little trill on the 'r' )

Seems the time wasted artificially shortening words, debating, re-writing/educating, and confusing people amounts to much more than the time saved by loosing the odd syllable.

Might even be dangerous.

Matthieu (Montri la profilon) 2015-januaro-06 09:46:54

marbuljon:Now I saw "danĝa - dangerous", alongside "danĝera" meaning the same thing.
I have no idea where this dictionary took "danĝa" from, because this word simply doesn't exist. I have never heard it, neither ReVo nor PIV know it and it doesn't occur even once in Tekstaro.

Reen al la supro