"c^u konvertig^o?"
Rudolf Fischer
en "Letero de la Akademio" Bernard Golden levis demandon de mi pri
-ita/-ata. Jen mi protokolas la tutan kaj petan vian komenton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
el mia demando: "... Lau PAG la izola pasiva participo ne havas c^iam la
saman signifon kiel c^e malsimplaj tempoj tiel, ke oni rajtas diri
'Amita virino..', sed neniam oni rajtas diri 'S^i estas amita de mi'."
Respondo de Akademiano J. Thierry:
Jes, la koncernaj paragrafoj en PAG estas ja konformaj al la Fundamento,
kiun observas la Akademio. Verbo indikas tempon, kiu koncize prezentig^as
law du vidpunktoj:
1 - la TEMPO KRONOLOGIA rilatas al iu tempopunkto: c^u NUN (prezenco
-as), c^u ANTAWE (preterito -is), c^u POSTE (futuro -os);
2 - la TEMPO DE LA AGO mem koncernas tiun de la plenumig^o (c^u
anoncita, efektivig^anta, aw finita).
Jam principe la simplaj tempoj p o v a s enteni ambaw tempojn:
- la futuro implici a g o n n u r a n t a w v i d i t a n:
"Maria skribos leteron - s^i intencos skribi leteron - s^i estos
skribonta leteron";
- la prezenco implici a g o n e n p l e n u m i g^ o:
"Maria skribas leteron - s^i estas nuntempe en skriba aktiveco -
s^i estas skribanta";
- la preterito implici a g o n p l e n e f i n i t a n:
"Maria skribis leteron - s^i finis la skribadon de la letero -
s^i estis skribinta".
Sed la kunmetitaj tempoj tre precizigas la ideon per tio, ke la
tempon kronologian montras la helpverbo: "La letero estos/estas/estis..."
dum la participo montras la agmomenton:
PREDIKTAN: "... skribota... kaj Maria ... skribonta" (kun intenco aw
decido skribi);
IMPERFEKTAN: "...skribata... kaj Maria... skribanta" (plenumanta la
skribadon);
PERFEKTAN: "...skribita... kaj Maria... skribinta" (fininta la skribadon)
Izole uzate, sen la helpa verbo, la participo memkompreneble indikas
antaw c^io la kronologian tempon, nur kuntekste la agmomenton:
"Amita virino ne plu estas amata!" same kiel "Mona havata estas pli grava
ol havita" - "Pasero kaptita estas pli bona ol aglo kaptota!"
(FUNDAMENTO, 22)
J. T.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallonga komento (asertoj) de mi:
- La supra n e kongruas kun la instruoj de PAG, c^ar ekzemple
oni ja nun jes rajtas diri "La virino estas amita".
- Tiu "aspektismo" estas "tempismo"!!
- Tute ne aperas la tipaj por aspektismo nocioj "aspekto", "dawro",
"ripeto", "rezulto"
- La aspektismaj nocioj "perfekta" kaj "imperfekta" estas same bone
tempe kaj do tempisme klarigeblaj (posttempa, samtempa); ankaw
Richard Schulz kutime uzas ilin tiel.
- La diferenco inter "izola" participo" kaj participo en "kunmetitaj
tempoj" estas do superflua: participoj c^iam indikas la tempon de
la ago (de la participo, ne de la tuta frazo!), c^ar jenaj frazo-
partoj estas samsignifaj:
1) Virino amita...
2) Virino estante amita...
3) Virino, kiu estas amita, ...
Ankaw la tempismo diras, ke izolaj participoj esprimas n u r
la tempon de la ago, dum la kronologia tempo devas esti subkomprenata:
"Vortoj kunmetitaj estas formataj..." (vidu la 16 "regulojn")
= "Vortoj estonte kunmetitaj ..." = "Vortoj, kiuj estos kunmetitaj, .."
Mi mem en tiu ekzemplo preferus "Vortoj kunmetataj...", do subkompre-
nante " .. estante..", "..c^iam kiam ili estas kunmetataj ..."
Mia demando do: c^u mi nekonscie konvertig^is al aspektismo,
aw c^u J. Thierry nekonscie konvertig^is al tempismo?
kun koraj salutoj, Rudolf
=====================================================================
sendinto: Rudolf Fischer, universitato de Muenster,F.R.Germanujo
adreso (privata): Gustav-Adolf-Str. 2a,D-4418 Nordwalde,F.R.Germanujo
retokodo: EMI12 che nodo DMSWWU1A de reto BITNET aw EARN
Alan William Hensel
Over Christmas break I did some statistics to see what the letter
frequency is in Esperanto. In English, it's something like e, t, a, o,
n, i, r, s, h, d... Now, I'm someone has probably done this for
Esperanto sometime before. Unfortunately I don't have their results, but
mine are somewhat interesting. First, here's the exact number of
occurences for each letter:
<space> 3270
a 2054
e 1508
o 1487
n 1408
i 1357
r 993
s 961
l 916
t 855
j 603
k 546
m 498
u 492
d 466
p 462
v 333
b 199
g 197
f 139
c 126
z 106
c^ 105
g^ 90
h 86
u^ 39
j^ 25
s^ 23
w 6
x 6
h^ 4
y 4
q 0
The supersigned characters seem to occur less than 2% of the time. It's
no surprize that h^ came in behind all other letters in the Esperanto
alphabet, but it also came in behind w and x, thanks to names. I kinda
hope it eventually just falls out of usage completely. 27 is a neat
number.
'a' is the most frequent letter, about as common as 'e' in English. My
father was convinced, after hearing that all Esperanto nouns end in -o,
that 'o' must be _by_far_ the most common. Nope!
Vowels are about 3/7 of all letters typed.
Anyone heard of the Dvorak keyboard? It arranges the keys so that in
English, the 10 most common letters are on the home row, so only about
1/3 of all keystrokes leave the home row. The world's fastest typist
uses it to achieve speeds over 200 wpm. According to the above
statistics, an Esperanto keyboard could be constructed so that less than
1/4 of all keystrokes leave the home row, when typing in Esperanto.
However, anyone wanting to type a w, q, x, or y would be screwed.
Of course, the general problem is a bit tougher than that, since the
typing ease of the most common 2-letter combinations are important --
for example, putting 'l' and 'a' on keys typed by the same finger would
be a bad mistake.
OK, yeah, I know what you're thinking. All this is well and good in
theory, but in reality we're all stuck with Qwerty, even in Japan. 'Cuz
that's just the way it goes.
The average length of Esperanto words seems to be about 6, compared to 5
in English.
-al+
Paul Hopkins
Esperanto, nur... surbaze de kiu teksto li faris sian kalkulon? C^iuokaze
mi, kiel lingvosciencisto, trovas liajn esplorrezultojn interesaj kaj iam
citindaj.
Mi ja konas la Dvorak-klavaron, kaj ec^ havas programeton kiu permesus al mi
tajpi per tiu klavar-arang^o je mia Mak', sed... mi jam delonge alkutimig^is
al QWERTY (with which, by the way, we are not ALL stuck: the predominant
keyboard arrangement in France is ASERTY, as i have had the bad luck to
experience on a number of occasions) kaj malofte retajpas plenajn pag^ojn
da teksto (kaj nur tiam estas avantag^e havi klavararang^on kiu ne celas
malrapidigi la tajpadon), kaj plue, mi ofte skribas per alia lingvo ol la
angla... do ne valoras por mi alkutimig^i al la Dvorak-klavaro.
Bruce Sherwood
particular, there may be a significant difference between text and
speech. Some years ago I carried out a detailed study of Esperanto
speech:
Bruce Arne Sherwood, "Statistical analysis of conversational Esperanto,
with discussion of the accusative," Studies in the Linguistic Sciences,
Volume 12, Number 1, Spring 1982. (This is the journal of the
Department of Linguistics of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.)
Abstract: "Taped Esperanto conversations among skilled speakers were
transcribed and statistically analyzed. The frequencies of phonemes,
two-phoneme sequences, and grammatical categories were obtained.
Statistics on the use of compound and derived words are presented. The
most interesting data deal with the use of the accusative. It is shown
that spoken Esperanto is dominantly subject-verb-object (SVO), and that
other constituent orders are quite rare and restricted to special
constructions. There is a discussion of the sociolinguistic and
language-planning consequences of the observed accusative usage."
The biggest sample was a half-hour conversation taped at an Esperanto
conference involving two very skilled speakers, the Scot William Auld
and the Flemish Peter de Smedt. Their phoneme frequencies were nearly
identical and were merged to give the following results, based on
seventeen thousand phonemes.
e 11.4
a 11.3
i 9.9
o 7.8
n 7.4
s 6.8
t 5.7
r 5.6
l 5.1
k 4.5
u 3.5
m 3.2
d 3.0
p 2.8
j 2.8
v 2.3
g 1.0
f 0.9
c 0.9
c^ 0.9
b 0.8
h 0.7
g^ 0.5
u^ 0.5
z 0.3
s^ 0.15
j^ 0.07
h^ 0.005
The frequency of phonemes corresponding to supersigned characters is about 2%.
Bruce Sherwood
are actually quite good (and comparable, since we both analyzed around
17000 phonemes, which in my case corresponded to 30 minutes of
conversation).
Consider a phoneme which appears only 1 percent of the time. That's 170
occurences in the sample, and Poisson statistics indicates a statistical
sampling error of sqrt(170). So we have 170 plus or minus 13
occurences, or a percentage of 1.0 plus or minus 0.1, which is pretty
good. For the high-frequency phonemes around 10%, that's 1700 plus or
minus 40, or 10.00 plus or minus 0.02 percent.
The fairly sizable differences between the Hensel and Sherwood
measurements shows however that statistical errors are swamped by
systematic "errors" (that is, real differences in style and usage in the
two samples).
Bruce
Bruce Sherwood
For the high-frequency phonemes around 10%, that's 1700 plus or minus
40, or 10.0 plus or minus 0.2 percent.
Bruce