Kwa maudhui
Kujibu

Is this true?

ya sudanglo, 8 Machi 2011

Ujumbe: 58

Lugha: English

sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 12:40:22 alasiri

For example, in English the clause can stand as subject of the verb: '[That he was frightened] does not surprise me'.

But this is not a valid construction in
Esperanto: *[Ke li timis] ne surprizas min.

darkweasel (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 1:17:27 alasiri

Ke li timis, ne surprizas min seems to me to be an entirely correct sentence.

sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 1:35:58 alasiri

That's what i thought Dark Weael. So I was very surprised to read it in a learned account of Esperanto

Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 3:07:00 alasiri

sudanglo:I was very surprised to read it in a learned account of Esperanto
Who were the "learned person" and "learned publication" involved?

I suspect that the objection may be to not using tio but leaving it implicit. But subkomprenataj vortoj are not unknown in Esperanto. For example Bonan nokton (al vi mi volas)!

T0dd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 4:45:03 alasiri

Miland:
I suspect that the objection may be to not using tio but leaving it implicit. But subkomprenataj vortoj are not unknown in Esperanto. For example Bonan nokton (al vi mi volas)!
I would use TIO in this case, myself, simply because TIO itself replaces the subkomprenataj TIU FAKTO. Maybe one level of subkompreno is enough.

Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 5:09:50 alasiri

PMEG says that ke with a following clause can function as a subject, although the ke-clause is placed at the end of the sentence (examples in the first box). Given the flexible word order of Esperanto, however, I would regard tio as helpful rather than indispensable, as the second sentence below the second box on the page says.

sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 8 Machi 2011 9:14:11 alasiri

The source is Esperanto_a_corpus-based_description - GLEDHILL Miland.

It is a very detailed review of Esperanto, supposedly based on database of actual usage.

Ceiger will no doubt say that I am attacking linguists again, if I add that after all the verbiage, replete with obfuscating jargon, it is difficult to see that the author has come to any useful conclusions, or revealed anything that would appear genuinely novel to a competent Esperantist.

If anybody has got the time to read it through and notices anything that is genuinely interesting in his comments, perhaps they might like to post.

I didn't notice myself anything which seemed to be inaccurate apart from the point quoted in my original post

Still, it is certainly useful to give to someone who doubts that Esperanto merits serious attention by academic linguists.

ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 9 Machi 2011 5:38:22 asubuhi

sudanglo:Ceiger will no doubt say that I am attacking linguists again, if I add that after all the verbiage, replete with obfuscating jargon, it is difficult to see that the author has come to any useful conclusions, or revealed anything that would appear genuinely novel to a competent Esperantist.
Nah, if they're taking a long time to say nothing, I honestly couldn't care - I'd agree Esperanto has a surprising lack of useful information and conclusions about it (whether it needs them as much as other languages is debatable I guess due to the ease of Esperanto? It seems that the most mysterious and confusing languages get the most attention, probably in attempts by linguists to explain what is thought to be unexplainable).

sudanglo (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 9 Machi 2011 11:09:02 asubuhi

Have a look at it anyway, Ceiger. It strikes me as being something just up your street.

Could be useful if you are required to do a project for your university studies and you can bring Esperanto in somehow.

T0dd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 9 Machi 2011 2:52:56 alasiri

sudanglo:The source is Esperanto_a_corpus-based_description - GLEDHILL Miland.

It is a very detailed review of Esperanto, supposedly based on database of actual usage.

Ceiger will no doubt say that I am attacking linguists again, if I add that after all the verbiage, replete with obfuscating jargon, it is difficult to see that the author has come to any useful conclusions, or revealed anything that would appear genuinely novel to a competent Esperantist.
I don't think Esperantists are the intended audience. This is a work by a scientist, writing for other scientists. The use of specialized terminology is appropriate.
If anybody has got the time to read it through and notices anything that is genuinely interesting in his comments, perhaps they might like to post.
I haven't read it all yet (I seem to have a lot of reading in my queue at the moment), but it seems pretty well done. I'm not a linguist, so some of the terminology takes me a while to digest, but the "morpheme effect" is discussed. This is roughly the same thing being discussed in the "improvements" thread: The way in which roots seem to belong to grammatical categories in Esperanto, and why this was a subject for debate in the early days (continuing until quite recently, from the references given).

What's significant about this study, to me, is the fact that it manages to present Esperanto pretty accurately and objectively, in very good detail, to a scientific audience.
Still, it is certainly useful to give to someone who doubts that Esperanto merits serious attention by academic linguists.
Exactly. The fact that someone was willing to put in the considerable amount of work that this monograph required is good for Esperanto.

Kurudi juu