Mensagens: 34
Idioma: English
ceigered (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de junho de 2011 08:21:46
(avoiding the more logical mi bonfartas for god knows what reason). 
Echo49 (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de junho de 2011 11:32:21
Echo49:What about with otherHappy?adjectivesroots transformed into adjectival form?
I don't see any problem with using "adjective" to mean ~a ending, just like how you can use "noun" to mean ~o ending, or "adverb" to mean ~e ending, or any other inflection. Everyone understands what you mean.
geo63 (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de junho de 2011 14:10:58
Echo49:Yes, but adjective is a word as a whole. Esperanto adjectives are really roots with -a ending, so these roots can be easily transformed into other parts of the speech. In a natural language you often need a new word for that or the rules have many exceptions. That is the difference and it is good to be aware of that. Then your esperanto skills will increase a lot.Echo49:What about with otherHappy?adjectivesroots transformed into adjectival form?
I don't see any problem with using "adjective" to mean ~a ending, just like how you can use "noun" to mean ~o ending, or "adverb" to mean ~e ending, or any other inflection. Everyone understands what you mean.
luno - luna : moon - moon/lunar
urbo - urba : city - urban
nacio - nacia : nation - national
sano - sana : health - sane?
henma (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de junho de 2011 17:58:22
geo63:Yes, but adjective is a word as a whole. Esperanto adjectives are really roots with -a ending, so these roots can be easily transformed into other parts of the speech. In a natural language you often need a new word for that or the rules have many exceptions. That is the difference and it is good to be aware of that. Then your esperanto skills will increase a lot.Esperanto roots with an ending ARE words as a whole.
luno - luna : moon - moon/lunar
urbo - urba : city - urban
nacio - nacia : nation - national
sano - sana : health - sane?
The fact that you have roots and a great amount of clear affixes to modify these roots doesn't mean that you don't have words.
In English you can add -ly to several adjectives, and what you get is an adverb, you call it that way, and not 'adjectives with -ly ending'.
Amike,
Daniel.
(by the way sano - sana: health - healthy
sane - insane: malfreneza? - freneza
How do you translate sane?).
geo63 (Mostrar o perfil) 6 de junho de 2011 18:27:07
henma:Esperanto roots with an ending ARE words as a whole.Oh, dear. Please, read my post again - we do not understand each other (perhaps Zamenhof's notes on the subject would help a lot) - in esperanto substantives, adjectives, verbs - are all FORMED from roots. They are not "standalone, solid words" - perhaps my expression was not precise enough due to limited knowledge of English. They are "compound words", formed from a root and -a ending. This feature allows for free transforming (if sensible) from one form to other by changing only this added ending, the root always stays intact. In English you have adjectives by themselves:
The fact that you have roots and a great amount of clear affixes to modify these roots doesn't mean that you don't have words.
In English you can add -ly to several adjectives, and what you get is an adverb, you call it that way, and not 'adjectives with -ly ending'.
good, fast, quick, high, red, blue...
You do not FORM them from a root. So you can't transform them easily into other parts of speech - at least not by one simple rule.
And for this "sane", I have just forgotten the adjective form for "health". Thanks for this "healthy" (you see, in esperanto there was no such problem!).
And for your last sentence: I do not write about English grammar, which is different to that of esperanto and I am no expert on it. And of course I would not call them "adjectives", because after adding "-ly" their gramatical role changed and they are not "adjectives" any more - they are adverbs "derived from adjectives", I think.
And why did Bertilo avoid using the term "adjektivo" in his PMEG? He used A-vorto instead. Of course, you do not need to agree with me and still talk about adjectives. But then come problems like the ones in this thread - what does an adjective mean when it is expressed as a verb - in fact it is not the adjective expressed as the verb, but the root with verbial ending. And that is a big difference. Once we know that, the problem is gone.
RiotNrrd (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de junho de 2011 01:35:48
A word like "vidi" is a standalone word, created from the root "vid" and the verbal infinitive marker "i". "Vid" by itself is not a word - it's just a root. "i" by itself is not a word, it is just a marker. "Vidi", however, IS a word. As are all its other forms (vidas, vidos, vida, vide, etc.).
It is true that its forms are compounds, but except for the few non-root-based words defined in the sixteen rules (the pronouns, the adverbs ending in "aŭ", the definite article, and so on) Esperanto words are ALL compounds. That doesn't make them non-words.
ceigered (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de junho de 2011 02:20:18
(the other carriages are made using other root/suffix combos, until you have a geo63 (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de junho de 2011 07:53:49
RiotNrrd:It is true that its forms are compounds, but except for the few non-root-based words defined in the sixteen rules (the pronouns, the adverbs ending in "aŭ", the definite article, and so on) Esperanto words are ALL compounds. That doesn't make them non-words.Look, I don't mean that they are NOT words, they are (my English skills are not up to the task to discuss such things, sorry - language barrier!!! - it seems that most natives can not understand that, I don't know why - I say one thing, they take it quite opposite. It looks like they do not read the whole message, but only first words, and then answer to them, where the problem is quite different and concerns other things). The problem was:
What does an adjective mean when expressed as a verb?
One compound is not transfered into another, unles you create something like this:
bona -> bonaas
rapida -> rapidaas
So if one is aware of this esperanto feature, he does not think in terms of adjectives, nouns, but in terms of roots that can be transformed into them, and the initial problem is not a problem any more. Take any root, give it an ending and you end up with a sutable part of speech (of course, if the whole operation has any sense). This is like quarks and particles that are made of quarks. If we know the features of quarks, we can predict the features of particles that are formed by these quarks. If we do not now about quarks, then we must learn the features of particles, we can not predict them. That is the progress, or is it not? Same is here. If you feel this root-ending system, then you have no problem of converting one part of the speech into another. The new problem is however: how to interpret the root + verbial ending. And for that there are strict rules you must follow. That's all.
But after all it is not my business how you call them. Do as you like.
sudanglo (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de junho de 2011 11:56:44
However this is a somewhat strange use of the term 'words.
But it does seem a totally correct view that most Esperanto words are compounds, including those words that consist only of one root and a finaĵo.
So in principle, it's the same type of analysis that is applied to a word like 'Instruistino' and 'Fari'.
'Fari' is the 'i' which is 'far'.
'Instruistino' is an 'ino' of the 'instruist' variety (and the 'o' of the 'instruistin' variety).
Obviously, when you have more than two building blocks the interplay of meaning among the elements can be complex.
Here's Zamenhof in translation
'But as a language of that kind is entirely foreign to peoples of Europe, and it would be difficult for them to be become accustomed to it, I conformed this dismemberment altogether to the spirit of the European languages ... Thus, for example the word 'fratino' which is really made up of three words ... the grammar books explains in the following way : every noun (in the nominative) ends in 'o' .. for the feminine gender insert 'in' ...
Perhaps someone has a link for original full quote (in Esperanto).
Miland (Mostrar o perfil) 7 de junho de 2011 13:26:45
sudanglo:I believe Zamenhof did actually refer to all the building blocks of Esperanto, including finaĵoj like 'o' 'a' and 'e', as 'words' (vortoj)That raises an interesting question: when did Zamenhof first clearly distinguish roots from the words formed from them?
No. 27 of the Fundamenta ekzercaro refers to them explicitly ("..oni povas ankaŭ preni la tutan vorton, t.e. la radikon kune kun ĝia gramatika finiĝo.")
We can go back still further. In his first book International Language, first published in English in 1889, the second and third of the "16 Rules" explicitly refer to the "roots" and the formation of substantives and adjectives from them.