Mesaĝoj: 386
Lingvo: English
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-08 14:47:54
darkweasel:According to ReVo, manĝo can be both the act of eating and the thing you eat.According to PIV 2005, manĝo can be the things eaten at a meal considered as a whole. Although PIV 2005 mentions a single dish (plado) as a possible meaning, it marks it as evitinda.
Altebrilas (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-08 21:38:36
sudanglo:And what about transitivity? Is it possible to deduce it from that of the simple verb? can we say "mi vespermangxis bovajxon" to mean "I ate beef at dinner" ?
It's very convenient to extend manĝo to mean meal. Then we can happily talk about matenmanĝo and verspermanĝo.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-08 21:45:06
Altebrilas:In my opinion, yes.sudanglo:And what about transitivity? Is it possible to deduce it from that of the simple verb? can we say "mi vespermangxis bovajxon" to mean "I ate beef at dinner" ?
It's very convenient to extend manĝo to mean meal. Then we can happily talk about matenmanĝo and verspermanĝo.
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 02:21:08
T0dd:Do you have actual data indicating that speakers of, say, semitic or Asian languages stumble on this aspect of Esperanto?But what tells you that the root is inherently a verb? In Esperanto there is no marker distinguishing a verb root from a noun root or from an adjective root. Chinese is prone to using the same words as different parts of speech in different contexts. In the majority of cases, there is no inherent part of speech assigned to the character.
When you take a verb and strip its verb ending and add -O, what you most often get is a word that refers to an instance of the action denoted by the verb. So MANĜO is "an eating", for which we also have the English word "meal". PROMENO is "a stroll", and so on.
Off-topic but not really, what would "bovajxi" mean?
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 03:15:58
razlem:But what tells you that the root is inherently a verb? In Esperanto there is no marker distinguishing a verb root from a noun root or from an adjective root.You have to memorize the root form.
It's not really memorizing the root's grammar per se. It's memorizing the root 'version' of the word.
So manĝ/ is a verb root, so you would memorize it that the basic form of the word is "manĝi" (as opposed to "manĝo")
In most cases the root version is obvious but in a few cases you have to memorize it separately.
For example it is fairly obvious that arb/ (tree) is a noun root, since it's a noun type idea. It's fairly obvious that kur/ (run) is a verb root, because running is so action-oriented.
A verb like miks/ (mix) would be a little trickier. Would you say that the basic form is the action of mixing, or of being a mixture of things? (answer: it is a verb root, so "miksi" is the basic form)
Off-topic but not really, what would "bovajxi" mean?"To be beef", in my opinion.
3rdblade (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 05:17:12
In other news, sports announcers in my hejmlando often say that Olympic athletes 'medal', which usually fires up a few cranky newspaper letter-writers. Not because they misunderstand, but because it sounds stoopid to them
razlem (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 07:09:42
3rdblade:We really should lunch one day, table these interesting thinks, and conversate about them. We may end up solutionizing, but if not, at least the eats will please and refreshify.We should. Y'all should come down for Mardi Gras next year
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 10:57:57
There is no principle of conservation of transitivity. Esperanto works by 'kunmetado' rather than formal grammatical rules of derivation
'Vespermanĝ' has now a thing type meaning.
The question then becomes what should a verb form of this thing mean, or to put it another way what action in the world would be conveniently (or obviously) labelled by such a verb.
I do not find it all strange that vespermanĝi is used to mean dine rather than dine on.
It doesn't strike me as something that needs to be learnt separately, any more than marteli means to beat with a hammer rather than some other action. It's all to do with the way the world is.
As human beings we have no problem in understanding that telefoni doesn't mean to beat with a telephone - we know how the world is.
With some roots the meaning of them in a different grammatical guise does not attach itself easily to something in the real world.
What would for example 'ampoli' mean, or 'pani'?
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 12:37:45
According to ReVo, vespermanĝi means "manĝi en la vespero". How does this not allow for a direct object?
T0dd (Montri la profilon) 2011-marto-09 14:24:25
darkweasel:In Esperanto, you can use a direct object whenever the sense of the verb allows for one.And according to ReVo, vespermanĝi is transitive.
According to ReVo, vespermanĝi means "manĝi en la vespero". How does this not allow for a direct object?
I haven't found anything specifically about this in PMEG, but there is this general statement:
Se la radiko mem montras agon, tiu aga signifo estas jam per si mem laŭsence tia, ke ĝi povas aŭ ne povas esti direktita al rekta objektoEnglish:
If the root itself shows an action, that active meaning is already in itself of a type such that it can or cannot be directed at a direct object.
What's noteworthy is that Bertilow says it depends on the root, not the word. The verb root of vespermanĝi is still manĝ-, so I'd have to conclude that ReVo is correct here, and Ni vespermanĝis bovaĵon is just fine. I don't know that I've ever seen it used in just that way, but that doesn't imply that it can't be.