ورود به محتوا
پاسخ دادن

Linguists and esperanto

از Altebrilas, 24 مهٔ 2011

پست‌ها: 216

زبان: English

Miland (نمایش مشخصات) 7 ژوئن 2011،‏ 12:48:26

sudanglo:per + X-i .. seems to be more than just unfamiliar. It seems to engage some decoding
This in my view is treating the infinitive like a substantive, and X-o or X-ado might be more suitable.
sudanglo:..an infinitive can .. act as a noun ..
It is a question of established usage rather than logic; see Zamenhof (Lingvaj Respondoj, "Pri prepozicio antaŭ infinitivo", No. 128 in printed versions), Butler's Step by step (para 1048), or PAG (para 117 dd).

Following this tradition, PMEG discourages the use of prepositions before infinitives, other than por, anstataŭ and krom, or the phrase antaŭ ol, not on the grounds that they are illogical, but on the grounds that they may be misleading, on account of their rarity.

Applying this to the previous examples:

1. The quote from Marx: "If a man was to lecture on the thermometer, and commenced by declaiming on high and low degrees, he would impart no knowledge whatever." I might translate this: Se preleganto pri la termometro komencis per deklam(ad)o pri altaj kaj altaj gradoj, li sciigus nenion ajn.

2. 'revo pri fariĝi rokstelo' I might re-word revo pri roksteliĝo.

sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 7 ژوئن 2011،‏ 15:12:31

Perhaps Miland. Maybe for the re-wording one could simply leave out the 'pri' and say ŝi revis fariĝi rokstelulino. EDIT: NPIV confirms.

I think I was hasty in thinking of Ed's sentence as a convincing example.

If the thing the person was dreaming of becoming was more complicated, like becoming the youngest Prime Mininster of his country, it would be difficult just to tack an 'iĝo' on to the end.

Li revis pri la-plej-juna-Ĉefministro-de- sia-lando-iĝo*.

Can we think of a verb where the 'pri' would be vital and we couldn't just go straight into fariĝi after the verb?

Miland (نمایش مشخصات) 7 ژوئن 2011،‏ 18:03:43

To tell the truth, I was just thinking myself that sometimes a preposition before an infinitive may be easier than trying to think of a way of putting the same thing in "good" Esperanto.

I guess I would need pri, if I wanted to translate "I was dreaming about solving the mystery of dark energy in the universe". A quick and dirty solution could be Mi revis pri solvi la misteron de malhela energio en la kosmo. "Correct" Esperanto would need more head-scratching, and that may be the crux of the matter, even if I succeeded in coming up with something e.g. Mi revis, ke mi solvis la misteron...

Altebrilas (نمایش مشخصات) 7 ژوئن 2011،‏ 21:59:23

Via opinio? / your opinion
(I will post this in esperanto forum > Questions)

BV. kopiglui la liston kaj meti steletojn (*) apud neakcepteblajn frazojn.

Mi revis tion
Mi revis pri tio
Mi revis frenezajxon
Mi revis pri frenezajxo
Mi revis solvadon de la mistero
Mi revis pri solvado de la mistero
Mi revis solvi la misteron
Mi revis pri solvi la misteron
Mi revis, ke mi solvis la misteron
Mi revis, ke mi solvas la misteron
Mi revis, ke mi solvu la misteron
Mi revis pri ke mi solvas la misteron
Mi revis pri tio, ke mi solvas la misteron
Mi revis tion, ke mi solvas la misteron
Mi revis, ke la mistero estas solvita
Mi revis, la mistero esti solvata
Mi revis la misteron solvatan

sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 10:00:18

Revi+inf without any pri is Zamenhofian usage - so the search is still on for a good example where pri+inf is needed.

I don't now quite what to say about it being used in a Lernu course.

erinja (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 10:20:36

Both Ana Pana courses have been checked for linguistic correctness by a special committee set up by the Academy of Esperanto (and some changes were made based on their suggestions).

I don't recall whether that particular piece of grammar in Ana Renkontas was commented upon. What I will say was that this committee was told, and accepted, that the Ana Renkontas course is more colloquial in tone. Although things that are actually grammatically *wrong* would not have been accepted, if something is colloquial and unusual but not actually wrong, that would have been allowed to pass through.

--

Edit:
Just checked out my records. The main course text of Ana Renkontas was checked for language, but not the dialogue with Zam exercise, and not the sample answers (it looks like the shady grammar was in the sample answers). So the pri -i construction was never checked by the Academy. If it were me, I wouldn't have put it into the sample answers.

Altebrilas (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 13:21:01

Jen atestajxoj de "pri esti", el Google
(1) Mi ne kontentas pri esti elito. Jen ĉi tie usonano kiu ne interesiĝas pri esti mondreganto

(2)Mi aldonas ke ni devas konsenti pri esti ĉiuj malsamaj kaj vivi kunkune en amikeco.

(3)(?) Mi sukcesegas la ekzamenon pri esti federa remado iniciatanto. ... Hodiaŭ, mi trapasis ekzamenon pri esti federa iniciatanto en remado. ...

(4)Nun, liaj gepatroj forĵetis lin el sia domo, li ricevas insultojn de instruistoj kaj minacojn pri esti mortigita de aliaj lernantoj ktp. ...

(5)Dekstraj militantoj akuzis Jangon pri esti komunista,..

erinja (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 15:37:27

Can we have English in the English forum, please? There are so many forums for discussions in Esperanto.

sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 16:36:35

I think Altebrilas that the case for pri+inf must be built on either the inelegance of a rewrite in classical Esperanto, or on the possibility of a distinction in meaning between that form and the obvious alternatives.

So taking your examples of 'pri esti' we must look at the rewrites in a more traditional form and decide whether they are clumsy or lose meaning.

At a quick glance, I would say no, but I am cooking dinner at the moment and can't post at length. Will do so later.

Was there any indication that they were sourced from English speakers?

Nicholas (نمایش مشخصات) 8 ژوئن 2011،‏ 17:59:59

razlem:
Kirilo81:most linguists don't know anything about planned languages
How so?

(anyone else's)
I think most linguists focus on a specific issue or specific language or set of languages. I think planned languages would not be of interest to most linguists.

They don't even teach Chomsky's theories any more in many universities (especially in the UK). I did an MA in Linguistics in London and didn't really study Chomsky's ideas. I have very little knowledge of them. We studied Lexical Functional Grammar, a newer theory, instead. I don't think Chomsky's opinion need be too highly regarded. His political ideas are certainly bizarre and his linguistic ideas somewhat outdated.

Nicholas

بازگشت به بالا