Į turinį
Atsakyti

Perpleksa afero

sudanglo, 2010 m. spalis 2 d.

Žinutės: 36

Kalba: English

sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 10:12:52

According to PIV2005 perpleksa is an adjectival root. Therefore there should be a clear difference between perpleksi and perpleksigi just as there is a clear difference in meaning beteen 'belas' and 'beligas' or 'grandas' and 'grandigas'.

However search the usage with CorpusEye and you will find a total confusion.

Li perpleksis pri kion fari, surprizita kun perpleksita mieno, perpleksiga problemo. Li aspektis perpleksa pri tio.

And compare these which may have come from the same book:

Alico estis tro perpleksa por diri tion.

Alico havis tre kuriozan senton , kio multe perpleksis ŝin ĝis ŝi ekkonsciis pri kio temas.

Alico plene perpleksiĝis

But from the Wizard of Oz:

Ŝtato_Kansas , estis sperto kiu multe perpleksigis ŝin

ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 10:32:40

I reckon that might be a bit of natlang interference if "perpleksi" is being used to mean "to confuse something", and if perpleksa is indeed an adjectival root. And since I've just found that perpleks- seemingly correlates to perplexus (entangled/confused) in Latin, comparing with plekt- from the verb form (per)plecto, I'm going to go with the idea of perpleks- being adjectival and therefore bringing sense to the apparent chaos of why all the words in EO have their own "native" state as a root.

Indeed, the lernu vortaro's definition for "perplexed" has a synonym of "konfuzita" alongside "perpleksa", so from that I imagine that "perpleksi" must mean "konfuziti".

EDIT: after rereading all those lines of text, I couldn't pick up any obvious problems with the use of perpleksi. They all seemed to make sense. Mi estas nun perpleksa. okulumo.gif

sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 11:09:06

Ceiger if Perpleksa is an adjectival root (as PIV states) and means puzzled/confused then it doesn't mean puzzling/confusing.

So you should say tio perpleksigis ŝin and not tio perpleksis ŝin, and ŝi aspektis perpleksa and not ŝi aspektis perpleksita.

But the usage as revealed by a corpus search is not congruent with that.

Take an adjectival root like riĉa - you should say tio riĉigis vin not tio riĉis ŝin.

Find me any adjectival root where X-i means the same as X-igi.

sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 11:24:18

Another problem in PIV is the word paniki, which is given as transitive.

So Coporal Jones's famous cry in Dads Army shouldn't be Ne paniku. And you should say Ne paniku la ĉevalojn for Don't scare the horses.

If paniki is transitive then what is the the meaning of 'ili panike forkuris'? Does that mean they ran away in a panic or their running away caused a panic?

ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 11:36:40

I tried to reply but a family member turned off the modem without checking and the post went off into the unknown.

Anyway:

Regarding "So you should say tio perpleksigis ŝin and not tio perpleksis ŝin, and ŝi aspektis perpleksa and not ŝi aspektis perpleksita."
That indeed seems the case and I missed that entirely (perpleksis ŝin). As to why that person would have done that, it is intriguing. Given that I've never seen it in what I define as proper esperanto, I'm inclined to think it's less a question of style and more a flat out error. Speaking of errors, is it just me or should the sentence
"Alico havis tre kuriozan senton , kio multe perpleksis ŝin ĝis ŝi ekkonsciis pri kio temas"
be instead
Alico havis tre kuriozan senton, kiu multe perpleksis ŝi ĝis ŝi ekkonsciis pri kio ĝi temas
given that the first "kio" seems to link to "senton" and the same with the verb form "temas", which seems to thus require a pronoun since actual noun is disjointed in multiple ways? (sorry for any errors, going through that sentence all over again peeved me off so it's probably rushed).

Also, in your original post you've got "Li aspektis perpleksa", not "ŝi aspektis perpleksita", so I'm guessing there's a typo somewhere or I'm missing something?

Regarding paniki, la reta vortaro gives us this definition:
1. (ntr)
Esti en paniko

2. (tr)
=panikigi
The definition for perpleksa gives no such notes so I'm guessing only "paniki" has that little quirk about it.

sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 12:14:29

Ceiger the 'kio' is correct. When referring to a clause rather than a specific noun use 'kio'.

Ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon, kiun mi rekonas de la tagoj kiam ni estis en la lernejo - I recognize the skirt.

Ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon, kio min ekscitis - her wearing a miniskirt turns me on.

Ĉu klara?

Reta Vortaro seems to have got it right over paniki, unlike PIV. (interesting that it recognizes both transitive and intransitive uses).

Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 13:54:41

Wells categorises paniki as transitive, so that "Don't panic" would be Ne panikiĝu. But the examples in the tekstaro are inconsistent. It may be that the transitivity of paniki has become uncertain because of evolution in the way that the word has been used.

ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 15:09:50

sudanglo:Ceiger the 'kio' is correct. When referring to a clause rather than a specific noun use 'kio'.

Ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon, kiun mi rekonas de la tagoj kiam ni estis en la lernejo - I recognize the skirt.

Ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon, kio min ekscitis - her wearing a miniskirt turns me on.

Ĉu klara?
Klara ridulo.gif But I would have thought that:
"Ke ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon ekscitis min/Ekscitis min ke ŝi portis helruĝan minijupon" would have worked just as well?
Regardless, nice to know that there's that variation, and 'tis nice to know now how that plays into phrases like Miland's example phrase on this thread:
Miland:Ĉu ni iru al la trinkejo? Jes, tio plaĉus al mi
. As I mentioned not long ago, like some adjectival correlations between Latin and Esperanto, it brings some order to the murky chaos (nur laŭ mi okulumo.gif).

Miland (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 16:05:08

ceigered:.. 'tis nice to know now how that plays into phrases like Miland's example phrase on [url]this thread[/url]:
..
Please correct the link to that thread - it's not working.

sudanglo (Rodyti profilį) 2010 m. spalis 2 d. 17:21:11

One of the nice things about the Tekstaro is that you can search a particular period of the literature. There is no suggestion upto 1934 that paniko carries a transitive meaning.

After all, paniko describes a mental state, as does perplekso.

And it seems quite right that 'paniko' is listed in the vortaroj as a noun root.

Paniki then would seem quite naturally to be available for describing being in that mental state.

However, to induce that mental state whilst clearly rendered as panikigi, I think could also be given as paniki - so that should perhaps be listed in PIV.

It's a different ball game with noun roots.

Consider 'limi' from ('limo') - en formo severe limita , la monto limigas la vidon.

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.

Atgal į pradžią