المشاركات: 58
لغة: English
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 1:27:46 م
* The hand symbol (I translate from page 39 of PIV 2005) "refers to a word belonging to the same field of meaning".
erinja (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 1:57:57 م
In that page, Jordan wrote that far seemed to be coming into wide use in the middle of the 20th century, and then its use fell off greatly.
PAG was first written in 1935 and then updated in various editions until at least 1981. That covers pretty well the middle of the 20th century.
I wouldn't be surprised if dictionaries' various approval or disapproval of far were related to the general community's use and opinion of the word. Since the pendulum seems to have swung against far, I'm not too surprised that Wells marks it as "frowny" in his dictionary.
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 4:51:29 م
erinja:..Miland (I think it was you who gave the link but maybe I'm wrong)..Jordan wrote that far seemed to be coming into wide use in the middle of the 20th century, and then its use fell off..I gave a link to a page on participles, but don't recall doing so for Jordan's entry for far.
That entry doesn't mention the middle of the last century; possibly you are referring to the printed version (which I don't have)?
Chainy (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 5:19:00 م
Kirilo81:@Chainy, sudangloRelax, Kirilo. Did you not see what I later posted? After a rethink, I said I would actually tend to use only 'de' most of the time, and occasionally use 'fare de'.
So, you think it's OK to break a rule or two of the Fundamento, as long as it's useful
Kirilo81:I think I get wound up when people say that something contradicts this or that law in the Fundamento without giving any examples. Just out of curiosity, how does 'far' contradict FG §11, which is:
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"?).
11. Compound words are formed by the simple junction of roots, (the principal word standing last), which are written as a single word, but, in elementary works, separated by a small line ('). Grammatical
terminations are considered as independent words. E. g. vapor'ŝip'o, „steamboat” is composed of the roots vapor, „steam”, and ŝip, „a boat”, with the substantival termination o.
Sorry, I've never been one for wordy grammatical explanations, I prefer to learn from examples of usage, something that PMEG is very good for.
Kirilo81: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.Ok, you mean something along the lines of this (click on 'Tradukoj' in the left hand column)? Ok, fair enough, you state that it was experimental. But, just goes to show, anyone can have a weak moment or two along the way. We have to be brave, resist the temptations lurking behind the bushes at every step. (Sorry, I'm just joking, couldn't resist).
You know, I'm kidding....
Kirilo81: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 generally agree with you on these points.
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.
erinja (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 5:38:57 م
Miland:That entry doesn't mention the middle of the last century; possibly you are referring to the printed version (which I don't have)?It was actually in a link that you posted on a completely different thread; it was a discussion on participles. The comment on "far" is about one page down from where that link starts, in a box beside the main text.
[quote=Jordan's i]Being Colloquial in Esperanto[/i]]::-I have the impression that over the mid years of the XXth century far established itself as moderately respectable, or at least unremarkable, but that by century’s turn its usage had begun falling off again.[/quote]
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 7:41:45 م
erinja:a link that you posted..discussion on participles. The comment on "far" is about one page down.Yes, I've found it. Dankon!
sudanglo (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 7:49:30 م
Seems to me it is still going strong.
The articles can't all have been written by the same chap.
erinja (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 7:54:03 م
sudanglo:The articles can't all have been written by the same chap.I wouldn't be surprised if they were all written by the same person, to be honest! Or the same two people. The number of Esperanto speakers active in writing Wikipedia articles is low compared to the number of speakers generally.
sudanglo (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 8:12:43 م
Those of a Finvenka disposition have over the years laboured in international cooperation to make sure, in advance of natural linguistic evolution, that Esperanto has appropriate terms to be ready to assume it's role.
Given the paucity of scientific, legal and other specialist articles that have been written in Esperanto, it has been necessary to ignore the usual lexicographic criteria and hothouse the language forward.
This is a honourable tradition in Esperanto - following in the footsteps of Zamenhof himself, who must surely have created more neologisms than any other single Esperantist.
Some might think that this congruent with its artifical nature. I imagine the same process has not been common with regard to the other European languages.
sudanglo (عرض الملف الشخصي) 22 أبريل، 2011 8:17:07 م
And when did Monato start - early eighties wasn't it?
Edit: the Wikipedia 2010 Corpus at CorpusEye is 14 million words. Very prolific for two people only!