Mesaĝoj: 58
Lingvo: English
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-21 18:23:22
erinja (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-21 18:30:56
The use of "far" to mean "by" is what people tend to object to.
I used "far" as a beginner. I thought I needed to distinguish between "of" and "by", and I thought "far" was the perfect solution. I eventually realized that "far" wasn't normative, and then I realized that I didn't really need it after all, that "de" is easily understood as meaning "by" in the right context. And that we can certainly resort to "fare de" in the few cases where "de" alone isn't clearly.
So I never use "far" anymore.
I know one or two experienced speakers who use it. Most people seem to outgrow their perceived need for it. I don't see it ever catching on, so I don't really worry about it.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-21 21:51:11
Actually it can be quite useful, because of the multiple meanings of 'de'.
La libro de Maria - Maria's book (it belongs to her); la libro far Maria - Maria's book (she wrote it).
Actually, the relationship between far and fari is not too dissimilar to the relationship between per and peri, and per can be thought of as pere de, just as far is fare de.
Edit: the examples in the PMEG section on 'far' illustrate more elegantly than my example above, how 'far' can be useful
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-21 22:46:04
sudanglo:That is a direct contradiction to the Fundamento!!! (imagine red, fuming face, twisted by intense outrage)
Actually it can be quite useful, because of the multiple meanings of 'de'.
La libro de Maria - Maria's book (it belongs to her); la libro far Maria - Maria's book (she wrote it).
Ok, I've calmed down now. Got that one out of the system. I think a few people would snap at you for this one, sudanglo. Seems 'fare de' is the acceptable way of making such a distinction.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-21 23:02:16
The nice PMEG example is 'la akcepto de la urbestro'. Did we receive/accept the urbestro or did we attend a reception put on by the Mayor.
horsto (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-22 00:00:32
sudanglo:Kirilo 'far' isn't derived from 'fari', it's just a new preposition, a new root.That's really ridiculous. How can far be a new root? It's a root since the beginning of Esperanto.
Using far in this context is nothing else than adding another exception to the rules of Esperanto. If this preposition is really required, what I really don't think, then please create a new root.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-22 06:26:30
horsto:It's a new root identical to an old root, similar to al and alo etc. e.g. we'd be doubling up. At least that's the main argument to legitimise it without breaking said rules of Esperanto.sudanglo:Kirilo 'far' isn't derived from 'fari', it's just a new preposition, a new root.That's really ridiculous. How can far be a new root? It's a root since the beginning of Esperanto.
Using far in this context is nothing else than adding another exception to the rules of Esperanto. If this preposition is really required, what I really don't think, then please create a new root.
Anyway, "farita de", although much longer, makes the most sense to me
Maybe my increased dabbling in Japanese is making me like longer words with a CVCVCV pattern more!(BTW, is there such thing as "debbling/devling"? I for some reason wanted to say that instead of "dabbling". Maybe the evil southern hemisphere just makes people slowly turn their "a"s into "e"s...)
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-22 09:53:36
Actually 'far' isn't that new. Here's a sentence from the preface of the Praktika Bildvortaro pub. OUP 1979.
la kompilintoj arogas al si la juĝon, ke la Praktika Bildvortaro estas ne nur laŭnome praktika, kaj ke ĝi trovos grandan akcepton inter instruistoj de Esperanto, kiel ankaŭ far tiuj Esperantistoj kiuj nur havas okazon kelkfoje en la jaro uzi sian Esperanton
The linguists may get their knickers in a twist over 'far', but the ordinary Esperantist will just see two words fari and far with related meanings but different uses. Not so very different from the case of 'redakcio' and 'redakti', or 'protektorato' and 'protekti'.
Those who are desperate to see Esperanto as a language just like other languages will presumably acknowledge the appearance of 'far' as part of natural evolution.
Those who see Esperanto as artificial and still being developed artifically in advance of natural evolution (for 'La Fina Venko') will presumably welcome the possibility of extra clarity in legal use.
Edit: by the way CorpusEye gives over 1000 hits for 'far', many from the Monato collection. One I particularly like is someone who was trying to distinguish between manĝado de la muso (yum, yum - licks lips) and manĝado far la muso.
Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-22 11:01:55
So, you think it's OK to break a rule or two of the Fundamento, as long as it's useful (sudanglo, you say it yourself, far ist from an analogy pere de : per - fare de : X > X = far, which contradicts FG §11 and is not sanctioned by FG §15, or do you know an international preposition /far/? - Regarding FG §6, do you know anyone who says "akcepto far la urbestro" but "ili estis akceptitaj de la urbestro"?).
Fine, so I propose a new case, the dative, marked by -l and two new pronouns, hi (for male humans, while li is gender neutral) and zi (including "we", while ni gets limited to an excluding sence). They are well-formed, useful and perfectly understandable, once explained.
You know, I'm kidding, but the Fundamento is just made unchangeable for that cause, because there is no non-arbitrary limit to changes made to it once you accept it can be changed.
And I'm not thinking about Fina Venko, raŭmismo etc. at all. In fact, "natural" and "artificial" are not categories applicable to languages, IMHO, as every human language contains both consciously and unconsciously formed elements.
I just accept, that Esperanto differs from other languages in the one point, that a part (! it's just a foundation) of its norm is fixed in a document. This doesn't rule out a "natural" evolution at all.
P.S.: In 95% of the use cases you don't need to make de more explicit, and in the 5% you need, fare de does this job perfectly well.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-22 12:49:12
sudanglo:The linguists may get their knickers in a twist over 'far', but the ordinary Esperantist will just see two words fari and far with related meanings but different uses. Not so very different from the case of 'redakcio' and 'redakti', or 'protektorato' and 'protekti'.To the contrary, some linguists might not mind "far" since they can "rationalise" it (e.g. they can perceive it as a new root, rather than breaking the rules of word derivation). I think the split rather is those who don't mind redundancy or complexity for ultimate simplicity/ease of use, and those who don't (how they come to see "far" depends on their own personal ideas of what's redundant/complex/simple etc).