Žinutės: 15
Kalba: English
Roberto12 (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 11:02:38
It's already known that la libroj de JK Rowling can mean "the books written by JKR" or "the books in the possession of JKR". And if the first meaning needs to emphasised, the word fare can be used.
I've realised that there's another area of ambiguity - agency/victimcy of verbal actions. Here are two examples:
La invado de Germanio
La mortigo de la soldato
Has Germany invaded someone, or has she been invaded herself? Has the soldier killed someone, or been killed himself?
Because of these ambiguities (which fare can't completely remove) I support the "campaign" to introduce *far.
Can anyone make a good case against *far based on something more than conservatism?
darkweasel (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 11:08:48
Well, I wish you good luck in introducing a reform to a living language!
tommjames (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 11:51:52
Roberto12:Can anyone make a good case against *far based on something more than conservatism?I have spoken the language for quite some time and I only recall this causing me an actual practical problem on a tiny handful of occasions. Context is usually sufficient to discern the correct meaning so I would not say that this particular ambiguity is serious enough to warrant a new particle when we can already say "fare de" to get the same effect.
It may also be worth noting that "far" breaks a rule of the Fundamento:
Fundamento de Esperanto:All forms of the passive are rendered by the respective forms of the verb est (to be) and the participle passive of the required verb; the preposition used is de.Abiding by the Fundamento probably shouldn't be seen as conservatism.
darkweasel (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 12:09:03
tommjames:It does when used in passive phrases (it would break the Fundamento if you turn the Fundamental sentence ŝi estas amata de ĉiuj into *ŝi estas amata far ĉiuj). But in cases of action nouns it doesn't break the Fundamento directly. Not that this would make it any better.
It may also be worth noting that "far" breaks a rule of the Fundamento:
Fundamento de Esperanto:All forms of the passive are rendered by the respective forms of the verb est (to be) and the participle passive of the required verb; the preposition used is de.Abiding by the Fundamento probably shouldn't be seen as conservatism.
Roberto12 (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 12:17:01
darkweasel:In what way can't fare de remove this ambiguity if you use it consistently?(Emphasis added by me.) You've answered your own question
. It is because Esperantists in general don't do it consistently that the ambiguity arises.tommjames:I have spoken the language for quite some time and I only recall this causing me an actual practical problem on a tiny handful of occasions. Context is usually sufficient to discern the correct meaning so I would not say that this particular ambiguity is serious enough to warrant a new particle when we can already say "fare de" to get the same effect.That qualifies as an answer - the fact that the ambiguous situations are too rare and context-dependent to be a problem.
tommjames (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 12:41:15
darkweasel:But in cases of action nouns it doesn't break the Fundamento directly.Yes you're right, I jumped in too quickly and didn't even see you were talking about action nouns
Still, I'd say its arguable that an action noun conceptually encompasses the idea of passivity, the action is indeed being farita by the agent even if the passive participle form isn't actually being used, so perhaps the Fundamento issue is still pertinent in that respect. In any case, I'd say the fact that far couldn't be introduced uniformly is enough to render the reform anti-Fundamental in general.
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 16:33:31
) and occasionally writes small notes or speed-written phrases with just roots, it just doesn't make sense:"La kuniklo manĝita far la knabo" means, to me, "The eaten rabbit d(oes/id/will _o) the boy" (for example I might write this down as a note in EO as "kunikl far knab").
So, in effect, "far" totally ruins my shorthand!
But yes, back to the point, far is already a "word" per se. One might write Esperant'-e in poetry "La abomena far' d'la abomenul'", but if "far" means not only an ambiguity of "action" but also "done by, by" etc, then things just start to stuff up, or we end up with even stranger poetic forms like "La abomena far' far la abomenul'" (the abominable act done by the abominable fellow).
Anyway, "fare de" works and is pretty much used the same. Also, certain words have certain relationships associated with them. "La venko de ____" generally means "the victory achieved by ______" (invado, to me, generally insinuates "the invasion into _____" but it's harder to be sure with).
BTW - if we make "far" "done by", then why not have "manĝita de" changed to "manĝ" and "ebligi de" changed to "eblig"? Essentially, the logic of "far" breaks a massive structural asset of Esperanto if it's used consistently.
Speaking of consistency, can one say "manĝe de" for "eaten by"? Or must we say "manĝita de" only? And, on that note, can we say "farita de" (where permitted by the syntax)?
Roberto12 (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 21 d. 21:54:16
(I won't deploy *far in my own Esperanto, but I'll be keeping my ears open for real-world-usage ambiguities.)
Oŝo-Jabe (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 22 d. 04:20:47
The "threshold" idea seems unlikely to me. Words like "estiel" and "aliel" never expanded their pattern beyond a certain point. I don't see "*far" as a threat to the uniformity of Esperanto. It's just unnecessary.
darkweasel (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. vasaris 22 d. 06:17:12
Oŝo-Jabe:"aliel"Which can be explained only by extreme laziness. One "I" more and it's a completely fine Esperanto word - aliiel.