Print

Print


Three interesting points here...
 
Je 01:17 ptm 8/15/98 -0300, Ensjo skribis:
 
>Mikhail ADIGEYEV scribeva:
>
>> nonobstante =3D NOT obstante. But what is "obstante"???
>
>"Obstante" es un parola de origine latin, ancora presente in le linguas
romanic. Illo
>es le participio presente del verbo "obstare", que es formate per le
suffixo "ob-" e
>le verbo "stare".
>
>"Stare" es le origine del esperanto "stari".
>"Ob-" indica "position ante" [antau`=B4] o contra [kontrau`=B4]".
>
>Ergo [do], "obstare" significa alique como "antau`=B4stari" or
"kontrau`=B4stari".
>
This raises the question of whether "ob-" can be used synthetically as well
as analytically. "kontra=FD" can be used to create new forms; but what is th=
e
result if you use "ob-"? Three possibilities that I can see here:
 
(1) "obstare" =3D "kontra=FDstari", both in form and meaning. There are
probably other examples that can be shown.
 
(2) You can put "kontra=FD" with "=BCeti", to throw, and get a verb that mea=
ns
"to throw against" ("mi levis =FEtonon kaj kontra=FD=BCetis la fenestron"). =
But
if you put "ob-" with the Interlingua version of "to throw" ("jeter" or
something similar, I suppose) you would, I suspect (and correct me on this
if I am wrong) get a word that is structurally similar to the Esperanto
word, but whose meaning -- for philological reasons -- has lost the direct
connection with "to throw" (it would mean "to object") -- in other words,
the philological equivalent of an idiom.
 
(3) You can put "kontra=FD" with other words and get new forms with new
meanings that can't be reproduced in Interlingua with "ob-" because there's
no etymological justification in the Romance languages for doing so. Can
the quite common Esperanto word "kontra=FDpezi" (referring to the weight
sitting on the other side of the scales) be legitimately reproduced with
"ob-" in Interlingua?
 
>"Nonobstante", como un adverbio, equivale assi [tie] a "malgrau`=B4 (ci=
 tio)".
>
Probably actually a bit closer to "spite" used with an object ("spite =E6i
tion"). But the difference is strictly one of nuance...
 
>> > Es bon haber un non-anglophono in plus [more] in le lista, pro
permitter [allow
>> > for] plus de punctos de vista differente.
>> does this mean
>> "It's good to have a (one more?) non-anglophone in the list, to allow
>> more points of (vast?) difference."
>
>Estas bona havi plu unu ne-anglanparolanton en la listo, por eblig^i plu
malsamajn
>vidpunktojn.
>
Kjell has already commented on the derivation of "vista" from "vider" -- a
very non-obvious derivation, I should point out, for someone not versed in
the Romance languages. I should also point out that "vista" as identical
with the English "view" is _not_ obvious to an English speaker. For us, a
"vista" implies no significant limitations on the geographical terrain
being viewed (invariably outdoors); both your direct and peripheral visions
are, in practice, limited only by the horizon. In other words, it has a
very limited and special meaning in English, and its use for any other
meaning of "view" in Interlingua seems not-so-subtly wrong, and not
immediately understandable.
 
"punctos de vista differente" is also sort of confusing because of its
syntax. Because "differente" lacks _any_ indicator of case, number, gender,
etc., putting it _after_ the entire expression, which contains two nouns,
leads one (at least at first sight) to understand this as meaning "points
of a different vista" rather than "different points of view". One might say
"punctos differente de vista", I suppose, but this breaks up a syntagme
which is a single semantic unit*; in practice, you would be, I think,
restricted to "different punctos de vista" if you wish to be understood
more quickly and accurately. (I kind of prefer the Esperanto synthetic
variant, "vidpunktoj", which resolves the problem -- if there were a
problem; "punktoj de vido diversaj**" is pretty obvious -- neatly.)
 
>Me pare [s^ajnas] que isto [ci tio] es un bon opportunitate pro que tu
apprende
>[lernas] Interlingua, ultra [krom] Esperanto -- cognoscer [koni] plus de
radices
>romanic. ;-)
>
Does "ultra" mean the same as "krom" (besides, in addition to)? From my
knowledge of English I would have assumed it meant "super" (over, above),
as in "ultraviolet", "ultralight", etc. (Similarly, I would suppose that in
Interlingua there is a word "infra" which meant much the same as "sub".)
=20
---
 
*In fact, in a language planned for international use a semantic unit
should always be given as a unit; otherwise, it becomes incomprehensible to
those not versed in its sources (idiomatic). This, I suppose, is why even
native Romance or English speakers using Esperanto prefer say "vidpunktoj"
rather than "punktoj de vido". (There actually ought to be a separate root
for this concept, since it is as close to idiomatic as makes no difference
-- which, I suppose, is why it is commonly replaced by such
equally-idiomatic forms as "starpunktoj" and "sintenoj". Using "vidpunkto"
instead of "punkto de vido" solves half the problem -- but not the other
half.)
 
**I am presuming that you would here prefer "differente" to mean "varying,
diverse". The other major possibility is "malsamaj", which has a somewhat
different meaning.
=20
 
 
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)