본문으로
댓글 쓰기

Linguists and esperanto

글쓴이: Altebrilas, 2011년 5월 24일

글: 216

언어: English

tommjames (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 6일 오후 5:55:04

sudanglo:Tom, are you there? You are good at forming Tekstaro queries. Could you do a search?
Aye aye Cap'n, try this: \\bper \\w{3,}i\\b

Just a couple of hits in La Ondo de Esperanto it seems.

Chainy (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 6일 오후 6:51:37

tommjames:Aye aye Cap'n, try this: \bper \w{3,}i\b

Just a couple of hits in La Ondo de Esperanto it seems.
The examples found don't support the idea of using "per + -i". They are talking about the meanings of words:
Anna Lövenstein krome asertas ke PIV lanĉis la neologismon "lukri" por unu el pluraj signifoj de "gajni", nome tiun kiun eblas esprimi ankaŭ per "perlabori".
Oni ne traduku (по)мешать sistemece per "malhelpi", kiam "ĝeni" pli taŭgas (pĝ. 29), nek напрасно per "vane", kiam ofte pli ĝustas "malprave" (pĝ. 85).

tommjames (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 6일 오후 8:29:38

Chainy:The examples found don't support the idea of using "per + -i". They are talking about the meanings of words:
Well spotted. Although, even if they were real usages, it would be hard for 2 sentences out of an entire corpus to support much of anything!

I must admit I've found myself on a few occasions wishing 'per' could go before an infinitive, where use of verb-noun or gerund (plus "de" if there's an object) has felt slightly unwieldy. Can't say I've seen it used that way much though.

sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 6일 오후 10:05:37

Thanks Tom - one day I'll learn that query language.

Ed, When I come across per + X-i in posts, or conjure up a sentence using that, the immediate feeling I have is that it is difficult to understand.

If were to read 'Per serĉi en Tekstaro ni establis ke oni ne diras tion', I would sort of have to stop and think about it.

It seems to be more than just unfamiliar. It seems to engage some decoding which I can't resolve.

Can anyone suggest a convincing example where per + X-i implies a different meaning to traditional forms, or traditional structures don't fit?

You can do this with 'sen' as I have shown, and I think also with 'por' (mi havas nenion por fari - mi havas nenion por far(ad)o*)

EdRobertson (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 12:34:41

sudanglo:Ed, When I come across per + X-i in posts, or conjure up a sentence using that, the immediate feeling I have is that it is difficult to understand.
It doesn't have to have a different nuance from using a noun, it just needs to be snappier than the alternative for it to be viable. And sometimes, depending on the context, it will be.

Ok, maybe there's not much in the Tekstaro, but I did find 675 examples of "per fari" kaj using Google, using kaj to try and screen out non-Esperanto text, not 100% successfully. I only looked at a few, and, yes, some of the matches were probably from learners (including lernu!), but several were from Vikipedio, one from Le Monde Diplomatique, one was from a translation of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" (maybe a misprint in this case?), and another from Karl Marx's "Wages, Price and Profit".

Here's the one from the translation of Marx: Se iu, kiu devas prelegi pri la termometro, komencus per fari deklarojn pri altaj kaj malaltaj gradoj, li per tio perus neniajn konojn.

I really don't have a problem with the per + inf here.

erinja (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 7:25:16

For myself, I feel that prepositions go with nouns, so if you put a verb with a preposition, it sounds wrong to my ear. This applies to "pro -i", "per -i", etc.

...however, somehow "sen -i" snuck into Esperanto usage. And I use it myself. I'm a hypocrite, I admit it. But I still don't really like it, and therefore I don't use this form with any preposition except "sen".

tommjames (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 7:38:57

erinja:But I still don't really like it, and therefore I don't use this form with any preposition except "sen".
Not even 'por', 'anstataŭ' or 'krom'?

"Anstataŭ" even has conjunction status in some dictionaries.

erinja (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 8:29:42

You're right, I do use it with por, anstataŭ, and krom.

EdRobertson (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 9:16:39

I did another Google search, this time for "pri fari" kaj. I found many times more hits for this than for "per fari" kaj, including a match in a course in lernu! (Ana renkontas, p. 27), which actually has another per + inf in the previous line.

Zam: Ne, mi ne pensas ke iu en Holivudo faros filmon pri Esperanto. Sed mi tamen revas pri tio foje...
Ĉu vi foje revas pri io? Se jes, pri kio?
Respondoalternativoj:
- Jes, mi revas pri geedziĝi kun mia sekreta amo.
- Malofte mi revas pri io fakte. Sed iam mi revis pri fariĝi rokstelo.

This sounds awfully like standard spoken Esperanto by a competent speaker to me. If it wasn't for the unnecessarily esperantised Hollywood, I could even see myself saying it.

sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2011년 6월 7일 오전 10:58:53

Hmm, thanks for the examples Ed.

I don't find much difference in meaning between 'pri geediziĝo' and 'pri geedziĝi', except if you argue that in one case she is dreaming about the ceremony and the other case dreaming about the act of marrying.

Certainly an infinitive can be the subject of a sentence, so act as a noun (or be part of a noun phrase). Erinja's objection that a preposition must govern a noun (or noun phrase) can be counter argued - geedziĝi kun la princo estas mia revo.

I absolutely agree that 'revo pri fariĝi rokstelo' is neat, and not easily re-worded EDIT: see later post for reservations.

As regards the tranlation from Marx, I am uncertain as to whether I can drive a spade between 'komenci per deklaroj' and 'komenci per fari deklarojn'. Possibly.

So rather than a blanket prescription on prep + infinitive except for the traditional usage with certain prepositions, the rule should be that with other preps the standard usage prevails except when this could be interpreted as meaning something else, or when standard forms would be inelegant.

Inter gramatiki, kaj paroli bone ekzistas abismo.

Quite possibly this is an area which demonstrates how pragmatic languages are and how distant from the arid formulae of the grammarians' quasi-mathematical attempts at systemization. You listening, Chomskers?

다시 위로