Komentarze na temat esperanto nie warte odpowiedzi (i tłumaczenia na polski)
Jeśli uważasz, że któreś z tych pytań zasługuje na
odpowiedź, to prześlij wiadomość.
(#111) Afiksy o wątpliwych zaletach
mal- doesn't mean "badly" or "wrongly", but forms opposites – a device
esperanto overuses to a ludicrous extent, for which reason it's probably the
most hated affix in the language (certainly by me!). Thus common words like
"small, short, narrow, old, left, bad, different" have to be mal-granda,
mal-longa, mal-largha, mal-juna, mal-dekstra, mal-bona, mal-sama; and "loud"
is the ridiculous malkvieta. Not only do these words require unnecessary
mental gymnastics, they also gets monotonous if you have to use more than
one or two of them. Even a basic meaning like "to open" is not exempt; it's
mal-fermi, i.e. the opposite of fermi "to close"!!! As ever, there are
unexplained exceptions: "left" and "right" are opposites (dekstra,
mal-dekstra), but "north" and "south" aren't (norda, suda); why? And David
Peterson informs me that some people like to say trista for "sad" anyway,
rather than the malfelicha you're supposed to use.
The augmentative -eg- and its opposite -et- reduce many possible
degrees of size to just three. Thus the triplet vento, vent-eto, vent-ego
"wind, breeze, gale" replaces the entire Beaufort Scale, and arb-eto (from
arbo "tree") turns out to be "small tree, shrub", requiring the
desparate-looking contrivance arb-et-ajho for "bush". Note also the
typically idiomatic derivation rid-eti "to smile" from ridi "to laugh",
which is clearly a lame attempt to keep the number of roots down; it would
better mean "to chuckle".
eta, derived from the suffix, seems to be a
synonym for malgranda "small" – but if it isn't, as many sources imply, why
is the distinction necessary? Is mal-eta the same as ega? Can you use -et-eg-a
and -eg-et-a to make finer distinctions of size? Together with the vagaries
of derivation and conversion, these suffixes provide further scope for
ambiguities: if rugh-eta (derived from an adjective) is reasonably "reddish",
then shtoneta (derived from a noun) is equally reasonably both "a bit like a
stone" (shton-eta) and "like a pebble" (shtonet-a).
And, for a language with supposedly high ideals and no grammatical
genders, there's no excuse for the excusively feminine suffix -in-, which
requires "woman" to be vir-ino "a female man" (not, strangely, the more
neutral homino "female human"); the hypothetical converse, fem-ula for "man",
is equally absurd.
(#112) Afiksy używane niekonsekwentnie
-ec- "quality" is necessary to make abstract nouns from nominal roots. Thus
homo, hom-eco "man, manliness"; but compare the inconsistent firma, firmo
"firm, firmness". blanko, blank-eco probably both mean "whiteness"; a
correspondent informs me that blanko is used in phrases such as "the white
of the eye", for which something like blankajho would be better.
-an-,
-ist- and -ul- all represent various types of people; note the inconsistency
with mistiko "mysticism", mistik-ulo "mystic", but katolik-ismo
"Catholicism", katoliko "Catholic". (There are further perils here: you
might think that katoliko could be a compound with kato "cat", before
consulting your dictionary and discovering that liko doesn't actually mean
anything.)
Brendan Linnane points out that the suffix -on-, which is
used to form fractions (e.g. ses-ono "a sixth"), is also used on the word
for "million", miliono, which is not a fraction; note its similarity in form
to "thousandth", which is mil-ono, and in sound miljono, which could be
anything.
(#113) Wieloznaczności
Because the affixes are short and arbitrary, many of them appear as parts of
longer roots and so give rise to words with several possible meanings. An
example for now is sukero, which means both "sugar" and suk-ero "a drop of
juice"; more such words may be found in
Appendix 2. (unfortunately no longer available).
Further
ambiguities also arise when you mix affixes together, since there is no
indication of what affects what. The classic example is mal-san-ul-ej-o,
ultimately from the root san- "health" with the affixes mal- "opposite",
-ul- "person" and -ej- "place". You're supposed to work out that this means
"hospital", literally "place for a person the opposite of well"; even with
this derivation it could also mean "private hospital room", "epidemic zone",
and so on. If instead you parse it as malsan-ulejo, you get something like
"sick building syndrome". Likewise, malgrandeta is both the opposite of
grandeta "largish" and the diminutive of malgranda "small".
There are
at least nine ways of constructing something which looks equivalent to
English "different", but probably isn't: alia, malsama, nesama, malsimila,
nesimila, neidenta, malidenta, neegala, malegala.
(#114) Fałszywe afiksy
Worse, some affixes mean different things at different times; thus the prefix
eks- "former" has its meaning changed to "out of" (which should be el) in
words such as eksciti "excite", ekstrakti "extract", ekstrema "extreme" and
eksporto "export".
Similarly, many words begin with pre-, which seems to
mean "before", however there is no such prefix; the actual esperanto
equivalent is antaw-, which should really have been left as ante-. And a lot
of words derived from Latin begin with kon- or its assimilated form kom-,
retaining its meaning of "with" for which the Esperanto is actually kun; the
unwary reader or listener must therefore wonder if the word is a compound
with some form of koni "to know", or perhaps komo "comma".
(#115) Afiksy, których brakuje
The derivative apparatus is deficient in other ways too; one obvious omission
is an affix meaning "the result of an action". Thus the nearest to "a piece
of writing" or "something written" seems to be somewhere between skribitajho
or skribajho, but the usual meaning for -ajh- doesn't imply this. Another
try is skribito, but this properly means "a person who has been written",
which is nonsense even in Zamenhofese. There's always skribo, but that could
be something else again; although, in Ido, we can be sure that it's what
we're looking for.