Sadržaj
Odgovori

What's the hardest thing you find to learn in Esperanto?

od Leke, 19. ožujka 2011.

Poruke: 19

Jezik: English

sudanglo (Prikaz profila) 19. ožujka 2011. 23:34:45

It's a very safe bet though, Todd, with technical words in English that feel as though they might have come from Latin or Greek, that the Esperanto version will be similar.

I see NPIV lists both redundanco and redunda.

jchthys (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 01:57:10

sudanglo:It's a very safe bet though, Todd, with technical words in English that feel as though they might have come from Latin or Greek, that the Esperanto version will be similar.

I see NPIV lists both redundanco and redunda.
And NPIV is not always the safest guide regarding "bona lingvo"-style Esperanto... It includes a lot of words for sake of completeness that are best avoided in ordinary Esperanto.

Mustelvulpo (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 05:28:51

For me one of the hardest things was the use of the -ig and -iĝ suffixes- when to use them and when not. Some verbs are obviously transitive (manĝi, bati) or intransitive (marŝi, paroli), but many just have to be memorized (boli, pendi).

marcuscf (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 06:25:57

To me, the hardest things were the little details about prepositions, suffixes, and subfrazoj, e.g.:

[LISTO]
de × el
the many uses of de
al domo × en domon × domon × domen
-eco × -o
-aĵo × -o
-ado × -o
the many uses of ĉe
si
tra × trans
-ita × -ata
subfrazoj with ke, kiu, kiun, kio, kion[/list]I learned most of these when I found PMEG, but I had to wait until I found ReVo to get a list of all the uses of ĉe and some other distinctions such as veturi × vojaĝi.

In some cases, I had to give in and understand that a human language is not as precise as a programming language, therefore some constructions do have overlapping meanings.

sudanglo (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 11:06:07

All the four definitions in NPIV under rendunda are technical in nature and show quite clearly that this is not just equivalent to superflua or balasta.

NPIV also commonly lists actual examples of usage in its entries or gives illustrative examples, so giving confidence when doubt arises over how to use a word.

Also remember that under rule 15 international forms are legitimate in Esperanto.

Miland (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 12:48:46

Redunda is found in both Wells ("redundant") and PIV 2005.

You could of course also use nenecesa, ekscesa, forĵetinda, balasta and so on.

darkweasel (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 17:12:24

Miland, super'flu' is even in the Fundamento's Universala Vortaro:

super'flu'
superflu | superfluous | überflüssig | лишній | zbyteczny.
... and of course also in PIV 2002.

Miland (Prikaz profila) 20. ožujka 2011. 20:20:27

darkweasel:Miland, super'flu' is even in the Fundamento's Universala Vortaro..
Dankon, so it is. A compound word! I just found it in Butler under fluo; likewise in Wells, and indeed PIV 2005. I have corrected my previous message.

T0dd (Prikaz profila) 21. ožujka 2011. 12:29:21

Miland:
darkweasel:Miland, super'flu' is even in the Fundamento's Universala Vortaro..
Dankon, so it is. A compound word! I just found it in Butler under fluo; likewise in Wells, and indeed PIV 2005. I have corrected my previous message.
This is one of those "etymological compounds" in Esperanto, about which I have mixed feelings. That is, it's a compound that reflects the etymology of cognate words in other languages. Strictly speaking, superflua means "flowing over", of course, so the meaning "superfluous" is figurative and therefore somewhat idiomatic. On the other hand, because it is a cognate, it's recognizable to many. Even German's "überflüssig" is a parallel construction, I believe.

When I was scolded on "Ĝangalo" for writing redunda, NPIV didn't yet exist.

The more general point here is that I don't like to be too quick to reach for a Latinate word and "esperantize" it, if a compound will do the job just as well.

Natrag na vrh