Wpisy: 216
Język: English
Kirilo81 (Pokaż profil) 29 maja 2011, 15:39:26
razlem (Pokaż profil) 29 maja 2011, 16:40:36
It should be possible to a computer program to do the same, palliating the restricted corpus by proper statistic algorithms...Certainly. Such a program would be quite complex, but it is possible.
Hm, I would prefer a conventional (arbitrary) meaning to a fuzzy/wobbly one. In the latter case a denominal verb would always be like a verb in '-um'. Especially in intercultural communication context (!= cotext here) is not reliable.I'm the total opposite. I would prefer words to have more than one meaning rather than having to learn more vocabulary. I very much like the Germans' use of separable verb prefixes (anmachen ausmachen, etc.) as opposed to entirely new words (Spanish: encender, apagar).
I disagree about it being interculturally unreliable. Hypothetically, since the verb wouldn't have a set meaning (fisxi = fish [action]), there's no cultural bias. And as I have often noticed, people are surprisingly adept at figuring out which sense of the verb applies.
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 29 maja 2011, 21:27:30
The famous 'Colourless Green Ideas' perhaps had no meaning when it was first put forward as a nonsense phrase.
In today's world it could be seen to mean 'insipid notions of the ecological parties'.
Currently, I presume, the word 'birdi' has no specific attached meaning. It's an 'i' which has something to do with birds.
In a past world this word could have had, or in a future world could acquire, a specific meaning.
Kion vi faros ĉi posttagmeze? Mi iros birdi kun mia amiko.
Perhaps 'birdi' is what Twitchers (birdamantoj) do - observi maloftajn birdojn per binokloj.
How mysterious would the word 'musklaki' have been to an Esperantist of the 1930's.
Esperanto's adaptability owes much to its basic feature of 'la oportuna kunmeto de radikoj' rather any than rigid rules of derivation.
Isn't it that lack of anything in the real world that might probably correspond to 'Fish fish fish fish' that makes this sentence so opaque.
Actually, on reflection the best interpretation now seems to me to be 'Fiŝu fiŝu fiŝu fiŝu' an exhortation, or a repetitive child's chant hoping for a Friday feast 'Fiŝon fiŝon fiŝon fiŝon'
Altebrilas (Pokaż profil) 29 maja 2011, 22:08:17
And in a few decades, it would be the same chaos as in natural languages.
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 30 maja 2011, 14:03:01
But it does mean that Esperanto has the potential for labelling a new phenomenon as the need arises without the introduction of a new vocab item that has to be separately learnt.
Going beyond fiŝi which has an ascribed meaning and birdi which doesn't seem to, you could compare bicikli and trajni.
Both are substantive roots according to NPIV, and whilst there is plenty of usage to support the dictionary entry for bicikli, trajni doesn't get a mention.
I think I have a clear idea of what biciklebla, biciklema, biciklinda, would mean, but not perhaps of trajnebla aŭ trajninda
Where's the problem?
Altebrilas (Pokaż profil) 30 maja 2011, 19:53:19
"bicikli" is not transitive, according to PV it means "veturi per biciklo"; what does mean biciklata? Is it the destination, or the thing on which you pedal?
So "biciklebla" may have several meanings. "trajnebla" may then mean reachable by train, and, why not use "infanebla" about a party where you can take the children with you?...
It would add more flexibility, but, if in the beginning, you have only a meaning to memorize instead of a new root plus a meaning, when the semantic space becomes more populated, you have to learn also confusions you shall not do with that word: the advantage turns into an disadvantage.
razlem (Pokaż profil) 30 maja 2011, 20:29:43
It would add more flexibility, but, if in the beginning, you have only a meaning to memorize instead of a new root plus a meaning, when the semantic space becomes more populated, you have to learn also confusions you shall not do with that word: the advantage turns into an disadvantage.I don't see an easy way around it other than not using affixes. And it would help if all the roots belonged to one semantic category or part of speech (all substantives, all actions, all qualities, etc.)
ceigered (Pokaż profil) 31 maja 2011, 08:11:32
razlem:I don't see an easy way around it other than not using affixes. And it would help if all the roots belonged to one semantic category or part of speech (all substantives, all actions, all qualities, etc.)Well theroetically they all do (they're all verb based I believe), it's just that dictionaries say "Birdo = bird" rather than some complicated mind-ruining explanation of how it all works
(I think though that having substantives and qualities as the base is generally more natural, but alas we can't exactly blame Zamenhoff for his thinking since back then, Latin was king, and Latin had historically had words classified often by verb forms (even if those very verbs were derived from nouns etc).
It's too complicated mess to deal with anyway in one swoop I think though. It probably requires a revolutionary shift in the way people have traditionally though, and I don't want to be the person that has all the crosshairs on them
That all said, if you dump affixes, you'll still have something that takes the place of affixes, does the same role of affixes, and is only different in name and usage, so in the end the original mess can't be avoided by simply getting rid of affixes.
sudanglo (Pokaż profil) 31 maja 2011, 10:50:35
It simply doesn't create a problem that all possible combinations of finaĵo and stem may not be immediately capable of being interpreted.
The dictionary definition of 'bicikli', 'veturi per bicklo' is there to give guidance. Ultimately the meaning of bicikli is the 'í' associated with bicycles.
There is an activity which any European will immediately connect with a bicycle.
We don't come to Esperanto with zero knowledge of the world.
It is also that knowledge of the world which prevent us immediately understanding what 'infanebla' might mean.
As the world changes, (and also as usage develops) so previously unintelligible combinations may become transparent.
All usage anyway is passed through the filter of the Esperanto speaking community and those combinations of roots which seem opaque are not adopted. Alternative modes of expression are preferred.
As to rigidly assigning all roots to the same class, this would be unnatural. Ruĝ is naturally quality like in meaning, as Kur is naturally activity like, and Trajn thing like.
These natural associations result in the dictionary listing Ruĝa, Kuri, and Trajno as the principal entry with other combinations of the root listed subsequently.
Altebrilas (Pokaż profil) 31 maja 2011, 18:02:54
A main issue in the language problem is the difference of cultures, which cause people of different countries see the world differently.
What is "natural" for me is not at all natural for other people, unless some authority has the power to impose his own "naturalness", like the king's foot whose length becomes the standard.
"House shaped" means pentagonal in rainy countries. In sunny ones, it means rectangular.
It is not obvious that "train" is only thing-like. It can be mobile-like or place like. Etymologically, it is set-like (cf. vagonaro).
It is better to have rigid semantics, because it helps to detect mistakes, than flexible ones, because we don't say always what we believe to say.