讯息： 9
语言: English
Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午5:21:48
While I don't dispute that the Tekstaro is an excellent resource to establish precedent for certain usages or see the prevailing trends, at the highest stylistic levels, I wonder whether one shouldn't still take its material with a grain of salt. I worry that (at least on these forums) some people are eager to just cherry-pick some quotes, without a critical eye ("Oh, but it's the Tekstaro..." ). Further, the Tekstaro has (mostly minor) inconsistencies even within itself. For example, there are several instances of pronomial unun, which is generally considered erroneous (PAG notwithstanding), or questionable participle tenses, or unclear syntax, etc.
I would think the Tekstaro is best used as a supplement to our own intuitions and knowledge about how Esperanto works, rather than as a trump card to override them.
leporinjo (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午6:50:09
Why is this in the English forum?
bartlett22183 (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午7:16:31
Kirilo81 (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午7:30:59
Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午7:32:54
leporinjo:I'll just get this question out of the way.Because it's relevant to a theme in the English subforum of using the Tekstaro to defend language choices under the apparent assumption that the Tekstaro does not feature less-than-ideal examples. My target audience is the participants of this subforum - to see if they are indeed making this assumption, and more generally what their attitudes are towards the Tekstaro. Though it's worth posting this to the EO forums too, sure.
Why is this in the English forum?
nornen (显示个人资料) 2015年4月23日下午7:51:44
When I am in doubt, my order of precedence is:
1) Fundamento
2) Zamenhof works in the tekstaro
3) Other people's works in the tekstaro.
What I find in (1) I consider to be a rule. What I find in (2) I consider to be a guideline. What I find in (3) I consider to be a hint.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2015年4月24日上午10:26:28
If a certain syntax or semantic usage is seen in the Tekstaro, then it must be acceptable - or so the (implicit) reasoning goes.Well it all depends on what you mean by 'is seen'.
Obviously a single hit in the Tekstaro does not supply strong evidence. But if you can find 100 hits and they don't just appear in one text, then you've made your case.
Let's consider an example that has resulted in a lot of discussion in another thread.
In the Tekstaro you will find many hits that include something like vidis lin fari, or aŭdis lin fari. They strongly support the idea that with these verbs what is in the accusative is the 'subject' of the infinitive not its object.
This is then can form a basis for concluding that in a sentence like mi vidis S-ron Smith policiston mortigi, S-ron Smith is the 'subject' of mortigi, or to put it another way, this phrase has the same meaning as mi vidis S-ron Smith mortigi policiston.
And even a single example from the Tekstaro in a very authoritative text can be useful.
For example, suppose we found a single example like mi vidis ŝin sin bani, this reinforces the idea that we may conclude that the ŝin is the 'subject' of the infinitive (the reflexive pronoun refers back to the subject) and sin the object of bani.
Alkanadi (显示个人资料) 2015年4月26日下午2:49:29
One time I was looking up where to place the comma in a sentence with the word ke. I found only a few hits where it appears a certain way. But, I found tons of hits where it is used "correctly."
erinja (显示个人资料) 2015年4月26日下午9:55:46