去目錄頁
回应

Linguists and esperanto

从 Altebrilas, 2011年5月24日

讯息： 216

语言: English

sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年6月9日上午10:38:54

Our cultural traditions inhibit the development of Esperanto in arbitrary directions.

To view a new usage as an 'error' today 'correct' tomorrow, is not to see the wider picture.

In the Esperanto community we admit change (deviation from tradition or authoritative usage) for a reason. We certainly should not change our view of correctness to comply with some linguist's notion of what should define correctness. We have a more important purpose.

Altebrilas (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午1:47:05

sudanglo:This is how you might rewrite your examples Altebrilas. I think it is petty clear that all the original sentences came from a beginner.

(1) Ne plaĉas al mi, vidi min kiel elitanon. Jen unu usonano kiu ne interesiĝas esti mondreganto.

(2)Mi aldonas ke ni devas agnoski ke ni estas ĉiuj malsamaj kaj opinias ke ni devus klopodi vivi kune en amikeco.

(3) Mi brile sukcesis en la federala rem-ekzameno por kvalifikiĝi kiel iniciatanto. (No idea what he is talking about so can't offer perfect translation

(4)li ricevas insultojn de instruistoj kaj minacojn pri mortigo de aliaj lernantoj ktp. ...

(5)Dekstraj militantoj akuzis Jangon, ke li estas komunisto,..
That is the problem when working with corpuses : there is no guarantee about corectness. The exemples are from several authors.

I would be happy to know if, when an expression is forbidden, it is because it may have several meanings.

*"interesigxas pri esti mondreganto"= esti mem mondreganto / pri la vivo de mondregantoj...

sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午8:05:45

I would agree Altebrilas that for a corpus to be useful as a means of establishing usage in Esperanto it should not include postings by beginners on the internet.

Does 'interesiĝas pri esti' have a meaning that is not covered by 'interesiĝas esti'?

Or does the 'pri esti' remove an ambiguity in the plain 'esti'?

Or is 'pri esti' ambiguous'?

Good questions. Depending on the answers a case could be made for the 'pri' form, or a case against it could be made.

Chainy (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午8:20:19

Altebrilas:
*"interesigxas pri esti mondreganto"= esti mem mondreganto / pri la vivo de mondregantoj...
That sounds like one big muddle. Rather than dithering about whether to use 'pri' or not, I'd just change the sentence to make it easier to understand:

1. Mi interesiĝas pri la vivoj/spertoj de la mondregantoj. (= Min interesas la vivoj/spertoj de la mondregantoj)

2. "I'm interested in being a world leader" - to me it would sound a bit strange to use 'interesiĝi' here. Why not just say: "Mi volus fariĝi mondreganto"?

Chainy (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午8:27:15

The use of 'esti' in that sentence is really silly - it's just a mistake by someone translating directly from their own language...

Chainy (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午8:30:26

sudanglo:I would agree Altebrilas that for a corpus to be useful as a means of establising usage in Esperanto it should not include postings by beginners on the internet.
The Tekstaro only contains articles and work from reputable sources, so it's a good one to use.

Altebrilas (显示个人资料) 2011年6月13日下午9:44:00

My goal is not to find the proper expression, but to understand why some expressions are considered unacceptable by esperantists, although compliant with Fundamento.

Does the principle of "neceso kaj suficxo" wholly explain this?
Using "pri+inf" when "inf" is enough contradicts the principle of "suficxo".
Having two possible meanings contradicts the principle of "neceso".

But are they other rules that govern esperanto?

EdRobertson (显示个人资料) 2011年6月17日下午5:15:37

Altebrilas:Does the principle of "neceso kaj sufiĉo" wholly explain this?
Using "pri+inf" when "inf" is enough contradicts the principle of "sufiĉo".
Having tho possible meanings contradicts the principle of "neceso".
The principle of neceso kaj sufiĉo relates specifically to the use of affixes, in particular the use of affixes which affect which part of speech a word is. Nobody said you could force random other aspects of Esperanto to fit in with subjective interpretations of neceso kaj sufiĉo.

Altebrilas (显示个人资料) 2011年6月17日下午5:54:53

I thought it was something more general. Do you have a reference where I can get more information about this?

sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年6月17日下午8:40:15

I would concur Altbrilas. I think the principle applies quite generally to all compounds - which means even to a gramatika finaĵo + one root.

回到上端