Al contingut
Respondre

Perpleksa afero

de sudanglo, 2 d’octubre de 2010

Missatges: 36

Llengua: English

Miland (Mostra el perfil) 2 d’octubre de 2010 17.40.05

sudanglo:However once you list perpleksa as an adjectival root then you expect it to follow the pattern of say 'trankvila' with a clear difference between trankvili and trankviligi.
La sidis trankvile - miaj vortoj maltrankviligis lin.
This reminds me of a fragment of dialogue from Jen Nia Mondo: Trankviliĝu, kara! Thus some roots need not be intrinsically either transitive or intransitive, but able to be made so by using the ig or iĝ affixes. One theoretical reform of Esperanto (in the unlikely event of a consensus arising about it) might be to make all roots like this.

ceigered (Mostra el perfil) 3 d’octubre de 2010 5.01.15

Miland:
sudanglo:However once you list perpleksa as an adjectival root then you expect it to follow the pattern of say 'trankvila' with a clear difference between trankvili and trankviligi.
La sidis trankvile - miaj vortoj maltrankviligis lin.
This reminds me of a fragment of dialogue from Jen Nia Mondo: Trankviliĝu, kara! Thus some roots need not be intrinsically either transitive or intransitive, but able to be made so by using the ig or iĝ affixes. One theoretical reform of Esperanto (in the unlikely event of a consensus arising about it) might be to make all roots like this.
Such a theoretical reform would make it so all roots are ambiguous in transitivity, or that they all must use ig/iĝ? The first one sounds alright but I wouldn't vote for either since it's just complicating things all over again lango.gif.
(I'd rather put future English speaking learners through the same hell I had to go through to get my head around transitivity than let them have an easier ride dammit rido.gif).

So, does this mean that "perkpleksi ion" can technically be regarded as "good enough"? It does seem strange that way.

Then again... Panic normally spreads from prior panic or frenzy, which can be sort of interchangeable. So, if someone's panicking, I guess they could technically panic someone else by just possessing a panicked state of mind.

In the same light, confus(ed/ing) things (things that have their matters mixed up) can technically confuse those who come across them (people whose minds have their matters mixed up).

Perhaps it's an underlying pattern describing the nature of panic and confusion, and how it spreads.

sudanglo (Mostra el perfil) 3 d’octubre de 2010 9.55.26

My beef is not that some Esperantists might say perleksi when you feel they should say perpleksigi. My beef is about how PIV has handled the root.

But, with the forthcoming WIKI-PIV at voraro.com, and the continuing development of the REVO, and of course the searchable corpuses at Tekstaro and CorpusEye, I suppose that the previous normative role of PIV will become less significant.

Incidentally, on the subject of transitivity, this notion is essentially linked to verbal ideas. There is no reason for trankvila to be either tr or ntr.

Anyway what is annoying is the grammarians who ponce around insisting the Esperanto verbs are always of a specific transitivity. Whilst this is true in most cases, it is not universally true.

It is not necessary to use tortuous arguments to accommodate the grammarians desire to strait-jacket the language. So that when a child says 'mia piedo doloras, panjo', or an adult says 'ni ne paniku', it is not necessary to imagine some convoluted explanation which will retain the transitive classification that is listed in the dictionary.

'My head aches' and 'let's not panic' are intransitive uses.

As Zamenhof said himself: 'I arranged a complete dismemberment of ideas into independent words... And the various grammatical forms, the mutual relationhip between words, etc., are expressed by the bringing together of changeless words.'

Miland (Mostra el perfil) 3 d’octubre de 2010 20.57.17

ceigered:So, does this mean that "perkpleksi ion" can technically be regarded as "good enough"? It does seem strange that way.
You're right, it sounds like fiddling expenses claims to me. rido.gif

Miland (Mostra el perfil) 3 d’octubre de 2010 20.57.19

ceigered:..ion
This ion makes me wonder BTW whether you're talking about confusing someone or making something confusing.

erinja (Mostra el perfil) 4 d’octubre de 2010 1.00.09

FYI I would not consider the PIV normative. It is an important book but I wouldn't consider it the final authority. It has historically included many words that are neologisms used by only a few people, without necessarily differentiating between those neologisms that are in wide use, and those that are scarcely ever seen and should be avoided. Some of its definitions are a little suspect, though the 2005 edition corrected many of these definitions. I would personally trust something in the Reta Vortaro (which is based on the old Plena Vortaro) over PIV in cases of disagreement. I feel like very large dictionaries are more likely to have errors than smaller ones, and I feel that the PV is more conservative in its suggestions (when in doubt, I prefer to go with the option that is more grammatically conservative).

PIV is a good reference but don't put all of your faith into it.

I should also add, for whoever doesn't know, that the Academy of Esperanto has a question and answer service. You can actually send a question to the Academy and get an answer from members of the Academy. It's called the Konsultejo. This would be a great question to send. The answers aren't official rulings of the Academy, but it's a way to get a quick response to a question from a very reliable source.

sudanglo (Mostra el perfil) 4 d’octubre de 2010 8.17.22

Thanks for that link Erinja. Perhaps one day I will send them a question.

I think that before the explosion of services on the Net, PIV definitely did have normative status. In a typical Esperantist dispute about the language you would hear 'Well PIV says ..'.

But now that we are able to search through so many millions of words of usage through CorpusEye, we can come to or own conclusions based on a pretty solid foundation of usage.

I have a feeling that, when some future history of the movement is written, the period 2005 to 2015 will be seen as a golden period when the Esperantists finally got their act together.

I suspect that the whole concept of an Akademio de Esperanto is something that belongs to the past. I'm not sure that I would feel so confident about an opinion just because it was promulgated by an Akademiano.

I remember one dispute (no names no pack drill) over 'Ni komenciĝu' in the sense of let's get started (ie ni ek-komencu) as opposed to 'Ni komencu' let's start.

Miland (Mostra el perfil) 4 d’octubre de 2010 10.13.04

erinja:FYI I would not consider the PIV normative..Some of its definitions are a little suspect, though the 2005 edition corrected many of these definitions..
Can you give a few examples of definitions from the PIV 2005 that you disagree with?

I usually look up Wells first of all, then Butler (both of them Akademianoj) and use PIV 2005 if I have to - so the physically heaviest last! I don't know how many genuine mistakes there are in PIV 2005, but I do know that Marjorie Boulton (an Akademianino herself) has described it as the best dictionary we have, so I wouldn't underestimate it.

darkweasel (Mostra el perfil) 4 d’octubre de 2010 11.52.25

Miland:
erinja:FYI I would not consider the PIV normative..Some of its definitions are a little suspect, though the 2005 edition corrected many of these definitions..
Can you give a few examples of definitions from the PIV 2005 that you disagree with?

I usually look up Wells first of all, then Butler (both of them Akademianoj) and use PIV 2005 if I have to - so the physically heaviest last! I don't know how many genuine mistakes there are in PIV 2005, but I do know that Marjorie Boulton (an Akademianino herself) has described it as the best dictionary we have, so I wouldn't underestimate it.
Bertilo Wennergren has made a collection of critical notes about PIV, just FYI.

erinja (Mostra el perfil) 4 d’octubre de 2010 14.24.00

PIV is a groundbreaking work for its size and scope. And I can see why Marjorie Boulton called it our "best" dictionary, in terms of completeness.

But as I said earlier, in case of a disagreement between dictionaries, I don't know that I'd trust PIV over another dictionary. PIV2005 is a vast improvement over previous editions. But you also have to remember that there are several editions of PIV floating around, so you have to be careful to use the 2005 edition only, if you want the most accurate definitions. Otherwise you end up with the famous "amor/i - seskuniĝi kun virino" (yep, SESkuniĝi, and yep, virino only)

----

I do not see the Akademio as being outdated at all. In Esperanto, everyone seems to think they're an expert. We need some voices who actually are experts to help guide the rest of us to make the best decisions when it comes to grammar. Otherwise it happens by 'popular vote' and you end up with the lowest common denominator. Of course the Akademio doesn't necessarily influence how the average person speaks, but their influence is probably felt more than most people realize. Several of lernu's courses have been reviewed by a subcommittee of the Academy, for example, to ensure that the contents of those courses are correct. We did make some changes following the reviews.

One of the Academy's primary jobs is to agree on official definitions of words. Those official definitions make it into the dictionaries that we all use, so that's another example of how Academy decisions influence us all.

Tornar a dalt