Print

Print


Geoffrey King skrev 2010-11-21 16.36:
> On 05/11/2010 22:44, Paul 
> Bartlett wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Matthew 
>> Barnett wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/11/2010 11:32, Kjell 
>>> Rehnström wrote:
>>>> Stephen Rice skrev 2010-11-02 
>>>> 18.47:
>>>>> On 11/2/10, Olivier 
>>>>> Simon<[log in to unmask]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> For Esperanto, the problem 
>>>>>> may come from its 
>>>>>> balto-slavic-like
>>>>>> orthography and phonology 
>>>>>> applied to a mostly Romance 
>>>>>> vocabulary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Such as baldaŭ, morgaŭ, suno, 
>>>>> birdo...
>>>>
>>>> If you take a strictly 
>>>> grammatical view, it is 
>>>> strange that Zamenhof
>>>> did not make: hodiam, morgam, 
>>>> hieram, hieram as they are 
>>>> clearly
>>>> temporal adverbials.  Or he 
>>>> could have extended the -aŭ 
>>>> ending to
>>>> all temporals, thus even 
>>>> "kiaŭ" and "tiaŭ" or "iaŭ"!
>>>>
>>> The -aŭ ending is used in a 
>>> number of prepositions, so 
>>> perhaps it
>>> could've been used in more of 
>>> them!
>>
>> As I recall, the ending is used 
>> in three parts of speech (adverbs,
>> prepositions, and 
>> conjunctions).  Certainly it is 
>> true that some E-o
>> endings indicate pasrt of 
>> speech, but obviously not all.  
>> And, just as
>> certainly, Zamenhof did not 
>> drive the 
>> one_ending/one_part_of_speech
>> structure to its total 
>> conclusion.  Ido is a little 
>> more consistent in
>> this regard, although again not 
>> totally.
> Another way of looking at this is 
> that -aŭ is not an ending, just a 
> syllable.
Right. Putting on the constructor's 
hat I imagine I can understand how 
Zamenhof may have thought. I'm 
tempted to think that his exit 
point may have been German laut (as 
in laut dessem) which he has 
generalized for aŭ etc. Words will 
have to end at something, if not e, 
a, o!

Kjell R
>
>