Print

Print


Je 11:57 atm 5/30/99 +0200, Kjell skribis:
 
>Bob scribeva:
>>IN ESPERANTO
>>(many radicals)
>A puristic esperanto might have had:
>
>>univers/o, universal/a; chiumondo (Old Z had _wszechswiat_ in Polish which
>>inspired him a lot making Esperanto, as it seams, but not in this case).
>
Just to reiterate what I pointed out here a couple of weeks ago: "univers'"
and "universal'" don't relate to the same concepts. The first refers to
_the_ universe (everything, without exception: an ill-defined, open
concept), and the second to a given statistical universe (a limited, closed
set). Which is why the today not so common translation of "Universala
Esperanto-Asocio" as "Universal Esperanto Association" is wrong, and why it
appears more often as "World Esperanto Association".
 
>>orient/o, orientalisim/o: sunlevighejo, sunlevighejano
>Polonese ha _ascension_ pro _oriento_
>
To my despair, I find both "oriental/ismo" and "oriental/isto" in PIV.
Neither, however, is an official part of the language, and you'd probably
be more likely to hear somebody put together a word like "Aziologio" (and
"Aziologo") today. (Though in fact this would not necessarily be correct;
"Oriental studies" is a term with a variety of meanings, not all of which
relate exclusively to Asia.)
 
>>kondich/o, kondicional/a
>This was one of the hard things when you had to learn the large ethnical
>languages that we had on our curriculum.
>
Don't worry too much about it, because the ordinary
in-everyday-conversation "conditional" would appear in Esperanto as
"kondi=E6a" or "kondi=E6e" (depending on context); "kondicionalo" is a stric=
tly
grammatical term, referring to a particular verb mood.
 
>>neutr/a, neutral/a
>neamba, neambaua; neambauema
>
Actually, "ne=FDtra" means "being neither the one nor the other", while
"ne=FDtrala" means "refusing to take sides in a dispute". A eunuch in an
international conflict (historically, not at all an uncommon situation; see
e.g. the Egyptian Babars) would be "ne=FDtra" but in no way "ne=FDtrala".
 
>>krim/o, kriminal/a
>krimo, krima, krimulo (criminal person)
>
Yep, this is a duplicate. Which is why, in ordinary conversation and most
literature, you'll hear only "krima" or "prikrima" rather than "kriminala",
which is largely unused.
 
>>radik/o, radikal/a
>radiko (root) radikala (who, what, goes to the root, rooty (radika,
ghisradika)
>
Actualy, "radikala" is a problem but not in this sense; "radika" would be
more commonly used here, both literally and metaphorically. The problem
with "radikala" is that it suggests fundamental changes/reforms; and, also,
it relates to the unofficial (but widely used) noun "radikalo", which
refers to the basic semantic unit of Esperanto.
 
>>norm/o, normal/a
>normo, norma (launorma)
>
Both these words are related, as Bob says; neither is used very much.
"Normo" means "a standard" (in the computer language, not the flag, sense
of the word; "standardo" means the latter, for anyone interested), and so
is rare in ordinary speech, while the related "normala" is almost always
"ordinara", except when discussing teachers' colleges (e.g. Huadong
University, Orient-=C6inia Normala Universitato)
 
>>mens/o, mental/a
>menso, mensa
>
Ain't no such word as "mentala" in Esperanto.
 
>>potenc/o. potencial/o
>potenco, potenca; enpotenca
>
Again, unrelated words. "Potenco" is, of course, power, strength in its
general meaning. "Potencialo" is defined as (you figure out these
definitions): (1) a drop in voltage (which, of course, is not the same as
power, even technically speaking); (2) "A scalar or quasi-scalar magnitude,
whose gradient, with an opposing sign, equals a given vector". Yeah, well,
I guess I can remember that from physics.
 
PIV omits a third definition: "a quality or quantity not yet made
manifest". They do include something like that with the adjective
definition, however.
 
>>horizont/o, horizontal/a
>vidcirklo, vidcirkla
 
Didn't we go over this one before? The first is the boundary line you see
in the west (or elsewhere) between earth and sky; the second means
"parallel to the X-axis". A "horizonto" is _never_ "horizontala" -- even
out in the middle of the ocean, it curves, nicely and even visibly.
"Vidcirkla" would be totally inappropriate for "horizontala", though it
would probably be OK for "horizonta" (if you assume that the horizon is
always going to be an arc, which -- on land, where people usually look at
it -- would seldom be the case).
 
>>spec/o, special/a
>speco, speca, lauspeca
>
??? No relationship that I can see (except perhaps etymological) between
these two. Kjell has quoted -- or reproduced? the latter is easy to do in
Esperanto -- quite nicely, the terms actually used. (The addition of a
definition-narrowing preposition used as a prefix is fairly common in cases
when you want to reduce dependence on context for the desired meaning.)
 
>>individu/o, individualist/o, individual/ismo
>nedividebla, unuopulo, unuopulisto, unuopulismo
>
"individualismo" appears in PIV as a totally unofficial word; the only
definition is "=3Dindividuismo", which is defined under "individu/o".
"individuisto" is defined under "individu/o", but there is no such thing as
"individualist/o". For most people, in any case, Kjell's "unuopulo" is the
common term.
 
>>nom/o, nominal,a, nominativ/o
>nomo, noma, launoma; nomkazo
>
"noma, la=FDnoma" don't have any close relationship to the meaning of
"nominal/a", which is pretty close to that of the English (traditional)
nominal: "having only the name, but not the right or real power" ("nur
la=FDnoma", perhaps, would be a synonym; "noma" would not). "nominativo" is,
of course, another grammatical specialty with only etymological linkage to
"nom/o".
 
>>du, dualec/o, dualist/o, dualism/o
>du, dueco, duecisto, duecismo
>
Bob's second, third, and fourth all appear in PIV ... as unofficial and
special philosophical terms, relating to a specific school of philosophical
thought rather than just to the number "two". As we all know, specialists
insist on having their own jargons, in whatever language. An ordinary
individual, trying to come up with terms for this particular mode of
thought without having studied PIV, would do just what Kjell has done --
one of the major advantages of Esperanto over certain other languages; you
don't have to have (a) studied PIV in detail, or (b) grown up speaking a
language containing a particular set of words to be able to _talk_.
 
>>materi/o, material/o, materialist/o, materialism/o
>materio, materiajho, materiajhisto, materiajhismo (the ism of material=
 things)
>
Does Bob's source understand the difference between "substance, matter"
(materio) and "an industrial source material" (materialo)?
 
Incidentally, there's also "materiismo" and "materiisto". "Materiismo": a
doctrine according to which matter is the only principle and the only
reality in the universe. "Materialismo": a mode of behavior striving in
life only for physical comfort and financial profit.
 
>>natur/o, naturalist/o, naturalism/o
>naskumo, naskumisto, naskumismo (cfr et Polish _przyroda, Russ. priroda,
>Finn. luonto)
>
"naturalismo" =3D a doctrine that denies the supernatural. From which we
could, of course, backform "naturalo" < "naturo", not "naturalo" =3D "naturo=
"
(given that at least all of those who are religious include at least
aspects of the supernatural in "naturo").
 
I should point out that the root "naturo" in Esperanto _does_ lead, in
actual practice, to some over-specialized combinations which are, perhaps,
inappropriate to a maximally simple language. I am thinking of the practice
of "naturismo" which is closely related to the English use of the French
expression _au naturel_. Probably the practitioners in question
subconsciously consider the more appropriate term (which also starts with
an N-) as being less than elegant.
 
In _just about every_ case I've seen above, Bob's informant has chosen to
take a separate root with a specialized or different meaning, and show
_its_ adjective version as that of the original noun root, which is simply
an attempt to mislead.
 
Incidentally, I wonder if Bob's much more regular ending -AL is, in fact,
_the_ unique adjective ending in Occidental, as -A is in Esperanto. I find
it hard to suppose that Wahl would have allowed such non-naturalistic
monsters as "autent/al" and "estet/al" to sneak into his language. (Where
endings such as -AL and -IK have been carried over into Esperanto as
meaning-free or redundant syllables, there seems to be an ineluctable
tendency to rub them out of the language unless their presence contributes
to a distinction of meaning, as in "materia/materiala"; e.g. "a=FDtentik/a"
-> "a=FDtent/a". This has been most obvious, as I've pointed out here before=
,
with the Latin third-declension verb->noun ending taken over into Esperanto
as "-{vowel}CI-" (the "-TIO(N)", which, according to Manders, is the
inevitable sign of a "naturalistic" planned langu'age), which is gradually
being eroded out of existence.)
 
 
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)