讯息： 15
语言: English
MarcDiaz (显示个人资料) 2016年9月11日上午10:25:26
nornen,
Firstly, my question was addressed to novatago. I would appreciate it if it was him that tried to explain to me his own theory, rather than others trying to explain the points someone else made.
Secondly, do you want to take part in our conversation? Well, I will be generous and discuss your points. But let's do it well. You start your post by quoting one of my questions "To you, they might not, but can you prove it somehow with grammar?". It seems you did not understand that question. I was referring to jkph00's two last suggestions, which are: "Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiuj viaj" and "Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiu via". In your whole post, you try to answer the question of whether jkph00's second sentence is grammatical. And you quote my question which did not refer to that second question, but to the last two. It does not make sense.
Thirdly, later you say that the first step to determine whether some statement is grammatical or not is to check whether there is positive or negative proof of its usage in the Fundamento. What do you mean by positive or negative proof of its usage? By that, I understand that one should check whether this construction has been used in the Fundamento. Finding positive or negative proof of its usage might be possible in literary texts, but the Fundamento is a grammar text, which gives rules of when a certain structure can be used and when not. Therefore, if you want to use the Fundamento to determine its grammaticality, you should not look for positive or negative proof of its usage, but for rules which determine when one can use a certain construction and when not.
Fourthly, novatago sent us a link before with grammatical explanations about Esperanto. That link is not the Fundamento itself. Is his link then irrelevant or not valid as a source of Esperanto grammar?
Fifthly, the grammar on the link novatago sent us should be based on the Fundamento. Therefore, it should be valid. You said that you couldn't find "la + possessive pronoun" in the Fundamento. Nor could you find an explicit prohibition against it. However, I did find this point of the language. We have been writing about it before. I will send you the links again:
http://lernu.net/gramatiko/difiniloj Look at paragraphs 31 and 32
http://lernu.net/gramatiko/pronomoj Look at paragraphs 9-12
In these links, the usage of articles, possessive pronouns and the combination of articles and possessive pronouns is described. So you might not have found the rules which describe its usage, but I have. And since there are some specific rules which describe when they have to be used, when they must not be used and when they can be used, it is these rules that we should observe. That means, step 1 already gives an answer and we do not need to go further to step 2 or 3. So let's analyse the rules, like I did before, and not if there is positive or negative proof of its usage in Zamenhof's works, because this is not really what determines the grammaticality of this structure.
If you write back, please refer to all the points I wrote here, and not just to those that you like. This might be obvious for good and effective communication, but so far I have seeen so many cases of people who do not respect this simple and basic principle, that I think it is useful to remind the readers of it. That applies not only to you but also to novatago.
Firstly, my question was addressed to novatago. I would appreciate it if it was him that tried to explain to me his own theory, rather than others trying to explain the points someone else made.
Secondly, do you want to take part in our conversation? Well, I will be generous and discuss your points. But let's do it well. You start your post by quoting one of my questions "To you, they might not, but can you prove it somehow with grammar?". It seems you did not understand that question. I was referring to jkph00's two last suggestions, which are: "Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiuj viaj" and "Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiu via". In your whole post, you try to answer the question of whether jkph00's second sentence is grammatical. And you quote my question which did not refer to that second question, but to the last two. It does not make sense.
Thirdly, later you say that the first step to determine whether some statement is grammatical or not is to check whether there is positive or negative proof of its usage in the Fundamento. What do you mean by positive or negative proof of its usage? By that, I understand that one should check whether this construction has been used in the Fundamento. Finding positive or negative proof of its usage might be possible in literary texts, but the Fundamento is a grammar text, which gives rules of when a certain structure can be used and when not. Therefore, if you want to use the Fundamento to determine its grammaticality, you should not look for positive or negative proof of its usage, but for rules which determine when one can use a certain construction and when not.
Fourthly, novatago sent us a link before with grammatical explanations about Esperanto. That link is not the Fundamento itself. Is his link then irrelevant or not valid as a source of Esperanto grammar?
Fifthly, the grammar on the link novatago sent us should be based on the Fundamento. Therefore, it should be valid. You said that you couldn't find "la + possessive pronoun" in the Fundamento. Nor could you find an explicit prohibition against it. However, I did find this point of the language. We have been writing about it before. I will send you the links again:
http://lernu.net/gramatiko/difiniloj Look at paragraphs 31 and 32
http://lernu.net/gramatiko/pronomoj Look at paragraphs 9-12
In these links, the usage of articles, possessive pronouns and the combination of articles and possessive pronouns is described. So you might not have found the rules which describe its usage, but I have. And since there are some specific rules which describe when they have to be used, when they must not be used and when they can be used, it is these rules that we should observe. That means, step 1 already gives an answer and we do not need to go further to step 2 or 3. So let's analyse the rules, like I did before, and not if there is positive or negative proof of its usage in Zamenhof's works, because this is not really what determines the grammaticality of this structure.
If you write back, please refer to all the points I wrote here, and not just to those that you like. This might be obvious for good and effective communication, but so far I have seeen so many cases of people who do not respect this simple and basic principle, that I think it is useful to remind the readers of it. That applies not only to you but also to novatago.
nornen (显示个人资料) 2016年9月12日上午7:41:46
Thanks for your generosity. After having read this post of yours and others on this forum, I can gladly answer: No, I do not want to take part in your conversation.\
And since there are some specific rules which describe when they have to be used, when they must not be used and when they can be used, it is these rules that we should observe.Am I the only one who thinks this passage is hilarious? Fitting "describe" (descriptive approach), "have to" and "must not" (both prescriptive approach) into one single sentence without turning a hair...
MarcDiaz (显示个人资料) 2016年9月12日上午8:05:44
After having read this post of yours and others on this forum, I can gladly answer: No, I do not want to take part in your conversationIn the beginning you seemed to be interested in the conversation. Now you are not. I suppose that is because you have run out of arguments. However, if you really do not want to take part in our conversation, be coherent and do no post anything.
Again, I could give you an explanation of my simple sentence, but you just show with your attitude that you do not deserve it. If what you want to look for is confirmation of the supposed hilarity of a sentence you do not want to understand despite its clarity, you are also not worth my attention. My intention is to discuss whether the examples of the original poster are correct or not.
And consider yourself lucky that I even wasted my time replying to your pointless post.
jkph00 (显示个人资料) 2016年9月14日下午12:02:49
Everyone, I greatly appreciate the discussion my question brought about. Thank you. I learned much from it all. I especially appreciated the insightful recommendation to check such questions against the Fundamento and in Zamenhof's works.
I think I will use the form Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiu via. I will choose it because I think it provides the suggestion of "to EACH and EVERY one of you and your family and community members."
Ĉu pravas? Does it?
I think I will use the form Elkorajn salutojn al vi kaj ĉiu via. I will choose it because I think it provides the suggestion of "to EACH and EVERY one of you and your family and community members."
Ĉu pravas? Does it?