Mergi la conținut
Răspunde

-iz-suffix

de robinast, 13 decembrie 2008

Contribuții/Mesaje: 19

Limbă: English

Miland (Arată profil) 16 decembrie 2008, 15:31:03

It may be that izi was adopted by some Esperantists from Ido because it appeared useful at the time for expressing the application of something. Subsequent usage (or not) would determine its fate. It doesn't seem to be used very often, except where the suffix ize would be used in English. In most contexts igi or simply an adjectival root with i may well suffice, once the usage has become customary, or easily understood from context.

erinja (Arată profil) 17 decembrie 2008, 02:47:00

I think the kind of people who go to Ido to find suffixes are the same sorts who create new suffixes like -icx-.

I don't personally use any Ido suffixes; I don't see a need for it. Actually, I would have a hard time doing it even if I wanted to. Even in the case of -iz-, which we have spoken about at length, I don't really understand the exact meaning of it, and I wouldn't know how to use it properly even if I wanted to. Saying that it's an Esperanto translation of -ize doesn't do very much good, really. I'm not sure I could give you a definition of -ize; I know what individual instances of it mean, rubberize, galvanize, anodize, etc, but if you were to put it on a random word, I'm not sure I could give you the meaning.

ceigered (Arată profil) 17 decembrie 2008, 04:10:34

Rogir:Or are we just adopting their suffixes out of pity?
Touché!

Miland:except where the suffix ize would be used in English
So it's just a converted English suffix more or less?

erinja:I think the kind of people who go to Ido to find suffixes are the same sorts who create new suffixes like -icx-.
What's icx mean? Is that a male suffix?

Oŝo-Jabe (Arată profil) 19 decembrie 2008, 23:41:42

ceigered:
erinja:I think the kind of people who go to Ido to find suffixes are the same sorts who create new suffixes like -iĉ-.
What's iĉ mean? Is that a male suffix?
'-iĉ' is proposal for a male suffix, from Riism (which also proposes a gender neutral pronoun 'ri'). Some would say it's unnecessary, as there already exists the male prefix 'vir-'.

Miland (Arată profil) 19 decembrie 2008, 23:58:12

ceigered:
Miland:except where the suffix ize would be used in English
So it's just a converted English suffix more or less?
That's a plausible theory on the surface, but I whether whether other European languages like Italian could be the source.

Polaris (Arată profil) 23 decembrie 2008, 06:37:14

I am really glad that Don Harlow's list was mentioned (with the link) and that this conversation came up, because I have had a LOT of questions about such things as -izi and other "unofficial" affixes. I just recently asked some experience esperantists about "steriligi or sterilizi"--as both can be found for "to sterilize".

I relatively recently went from being a dabbler with Esperanto to being an enthusiast. I jumped off the deep end, so to speak, and I am now having my "vocabulary expansion explosion"--a term that anyone who has become bilingual in another language will surely recognize--a stage that took years to reach in my first foreign language.

As I've gotten more involved, I have really been wondering about these unofficial forms I have run into. I've wondered how to strike comfortable balance between pedantically strict insistence on using only very classical Esperanto (which doesn't seem realistic--languages do grow and evolve), and the other extreme--the careless proliferation of unnecessary borrowings and neologisms that only serve to clutter the language. I can't believe how heated this debate has become.

I still don't have all the answers, but Don Harlow's list at least provided some insight into unofficial affixes. I'd really like to hear from experienced Esperantists on where they draw the line.

Miland (Arată profil) 23 decembrie 2008, 10:35:12

Polaris: I've wondered how to strike comfortable balance..I'd really like to hear from experienced Esperantists on where they draw the line
For me, the criterion in evaluating unofficial suffixes or other innovations is usage by dictionaries and other publications with a good reputation. If there's no such objective evidence that an innovation has been successfully used, I would be cautious. For example I have known of oz in a reputable DVD course (in a passing conversation) and iv in a word in a reputable dictionary, but that is not true of ri or iĉ; these are yet to prove themselves as far as I'm concerned.

This is not to recommend the indiscriminate use of unofficial suffixes, only to indicate the possibility where a need is felt. This is most likely to be the case with technical or professional terms.

russ (Arată profil) 4 ianuarie 2009, 23:17:52

Polaris: I've wondered how to strike comfortable balance..I'd really like to hear from experienced Esperantists on where they draw the line
I suggest trying to use more fundamental/official words rather than lots of neologisms. Even if you later decide that you're a fan of neologisms, the experience you gain by really thinking about how word construction works and learning fundamental/official roots will be very valuable for you.

Google for "Bona Lingvo" (or order and read the book itself by Claude Piron). Check out resources like http://www.bonalingvo.it/index.php/Simplaj_samsign...

Too many people just end up lazily using their own national language words and slightly Esperantizing them (e.g. saying the bogus non-word* "satisfakcio" instead of "kontento"), which really defeats the purpose of Esperanto.

*OK, according to PIV2002, "satisfakcio" is a word, but relates to duels, not to being content.

orthohawk (Arată profil) 5 ianuarie 2009, 01:57:41

Miland:The entry in Butler begins
-iz(provizi per)(tech. sfx)
= -ize. Examples under four groups include
(a) Provide with: dent~i (buŝon)
(b) Fill or impregnate with: suker~i paston
(c) Cover with: Or~i (gilt)
(d) Bring under the influence of: hipnot~i.
I LOVE the Butler Eo-En dictionary! I learned so much by just reading thru the entries, about word formation, usage. I really wish someone would reprint it. The first copy I ever bought (in 1977) finally just fell to pieces, but I managed to find another one thru a used book warehouse site (www.biblio.com) and snatched it up fast!

Înapoi mai sus