Tin nhắn: 38
Nội dung: English
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 17:52:24 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
"hundmanĝi" to me goes in that makeshift category of words I've got where the meaning's so darn vague you might as well use it however you want, and if you want to makes perfect clear sense then just avoid it. In case of "manĝi" though, if placed with something that can actually be eaten in front of it, I'd say the general meaning would lean towards eating that thing.
E.g. hundmanĝi (laŭ mi) = manĝi hundon, sed maŝinmanĝi (laŭ mi) = manĝi kiel maŝino.
Hundurini = urini kiel hundo, ne eligi hundojn kiel urino
, sed tabasksaŭcurini = eligi tabasksaŭco kiel urino.Kaj tiel plu
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 18:04:20 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
E.g. hundmanĝi (laŭ mi) = manĝi hundonThis is a bad way of looking at it, because it shows an object. In "hundmanĝi" there is no object. Just an action and something that describes the manner of that action. You can hundmanĝi and not necessarily manĝi an actual hundon.
PMEG:Tiaj kombinoj signife diferencas de la duvortaĵoj skribi letero(j)n, doni voĉo(j)n k.t.p. En skribi leteron la objekto montras konkretan objekton de la skribado, dum en leterskribi LETER nur karakterizas la specon de skribado.It is of course true that in reality hundmanĝado will probably involve the actual eating of dogs, just as fiŝkaptado will probably involve the actual catching of fish (if you're any good!), and leterskribado will involve the actual writing of a letter. However this is incedental. "Hundmanĝi" doesn't show any object, so it's wrong to assume there is one, as in "manĝi hundon".
Roberto12 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 18:43:11 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
darkweasel:A reĝmortigisto is somebody who kills a king, in probably most cases.If the word is translated as "royal assassin" for example, it really is ambiguous. The problem is that Esperanto compounds don't contain morphological information pertaining to the relationship between the ingredients. In this case the possible relationships are de and -on.
I might as well point out that there's no ambiguity in the corresponding Volapük compounds because they do specify the relationship.
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 19:06:08 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
Roberto12:I might as well point out that there's no ambiguity in the corresponding Volapük compounds because they do specify the relationship.Interesting. Do you have a few examples off the top of your head?
Roberto12 (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 19:50:34 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
tommjames:Interesting. Do you have a few examples off the top of your head?Not off the top of my head, but having looked in a dictionary, I can report the following:
"Regideidan" = monarch-killer
"Regadeidan" = killer of/for a monarch
And also:
"Regodeidan" = monarch-like killer
Let's all migrate to Volapük!
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 20:15:00 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
Roberto12:Let's all migrate to Volapük!Golobsöd!
Rogir (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 21:15:54 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
darkweasel (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 21:24:29 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
Rogir:In Esperanto you could add the accusative ending in the compound to take away all ambiguity.No, you couldn't because N-endings are always removed from the non-main parts of a compound.
tommjames (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 21:33:51 Ngày 19 tháng 2 năm 2010
darkweasel:Just to add, there are some exceptions to this.. sinteno, sinfido, sindefendo etc. But yes, besides that you don't put the object marker in a compound.Rogir:In Esperanto you could add the accusative ending in the compound to take away all ambiguity.No, you couldn't because N-endings are always removed from the non-main parts of a compound.
PMEG:Normale N-finaĵoj (same kiel J-finaĵoj) forfalas ene de kunmetitaj vortoj.
povas ĉion (fari) → ĉion povas → [ĉion povas]-A → ĉiopova = tia, ke oni povas ĉion fari (ne *ĉionpova*, N-finaĵoj forfalas ene de frazetvortoj)
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 18:41:45 Ngày 20 tháng 2 năm 2010
tommjames:I know, it's altogether a terrible way to do things when you could just say "VI MANĜIS HUNDOJN?! ELIRI MIAN DOMON NUN!". It does get complicated talking about actions though, e.g. "Mi ŝatas la manĝon de hundojn" (which could mean "I like the eating (that dogs do)" or "(I like eating dogs) - luckily in this case one could probably say "Mi ŝatas manĝi hundojn" but in "Vian manĝadon de hundoj mi ne tute ŝatas" things get complicated again, unless restructured to "Mi ne tute ŝatas ke vi manĝas hundojn").E.g. hundmanĝi (laŭ mi) = manĝi hundonThis is a bad way of looking at it, because it shows an object. In "hundmanĝi" there is no object. Just an action and something that describes the manner of that action. You can hundmanĝi and not necessarily manĝi an actual hundon.
Off the top of the head, however, it's easy and looks funny (especially when compared with such sophisticated Esperanto compounds such as al/eligi, kunesti, aldoni and katmanĝi - hold on a sec...)