Print

Print


Concernente le "musings" de Donald Harlow, quando ille scribeva de su tres
interessante punctos:
 
>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 t=
he
>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 me=
ans
>"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.
 
Il es clar que _objection_ es le mesme _objection_ como in anglese. Io
"contrajecta" in senso figurative lo que on ha dicite. Tal figuras de
parola nos ha multe in le vocabulario international. Un altere es
_interjection_ un cosa que on jecta inter le altere vocabulos in le
linguage, e iste maniera de pensar es tanto clar que le parola in rusa de
facto es que _interjection_ in russo es _mezhdumeti'e_.
 
In le mesme maniera interlingua tracta _circum_; Le vocabulo
_circumstantia_ es in russo
_obstoyatel'stvo_
_circumstantia_.
 
 
>(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 ti=
o)".
Si, le vocabuarlio dice isto.
 
>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.)
 
Si isto pote esser difficile. Viste que isto es un lingua international io
me sovente (often) permitte de scriber _differente punctos de vista_. Del
altere latere, isto es un cosa de adaptation. Mi lingua ha le mesme ordine
de attributos adjectival in relation al vocabulo principal como anglese o
esperanto e io besoniava un certe tempore de adaptation al interlinguan
maniera de pensar. Un simile adaptation debe un polonese o francese haber
in relation a esperanto.....
 
>>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".)
 
No, ultra significa litteralmente_beyond_. Le antonymos es _supra_ e
_infra_. Pro isto nos pote parlar de un _suprastructura_ e un
_infrastructura_. On lo pote usar como preposition _ultra isto io ha facite
un altere cosa_ "Beyond/Except for this I have been doing another thing_.
 
>*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.)
 
Isto es sub tu standard, Don! Tu pote melior. Le vocabulo in esperanto _es_
_vidpunkto_. Esperanto non usa formationes como _punkto de vido_. Estas
tiel simple!
 
_starpunkto_ forsan _position_, _sinteno_ _attitude_. In omne linguas on
debe per experientia apprender certe cosas. Tanto etiam in esperanto. Le
vocabulo _sinteno_ poterea ben esser comprendite a un svedese como le
frenetic action de un persona incontinente facer se (become, get)
continente! (Multo amusante! De ubi veni tote iste burlar (jokes)? ;-)
 
>**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.
 
A besonio on pote parlar de _non-identic_.
 
Summariemente on pote dicer que le prefixos non es multo productive in
interlingua hodie in le mesme maniera que illos non lo es in le linguas de
fonte, ma subito il pote apparer un prefixo que ancora vive como _pre-_ e
_post_; _pre-bellic; post-moderne_ pote esser tal exemplos. E on pote
_destalinisar, denationalisar, denaturalisar, deforestar.
 
Le "decavallisation" in le agricultura svedese comenciava relativemente tard=
e."
 
E nos ha audite de _defoliation_.
 
 
[log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Svedia - Sweden