Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)

From: Tak To (takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-)
Date: 07/08/04 

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:51:33 -0400

pierre.levy wrote:
PL.0> Petro: Mistakes which are almost unavoidable in French. In
PL.0> Mandarin, you can't simply say "to read", "to drink", "to
PL.0> eat". You must at least "read book", "drink tea", "eat
PL.0> rice". If you forget to add the proper word, your phrase has
PL.0> another meaning. Is this a lie?

Tak To wrote:
TT.1> It is simply untrue. (Whether it is a lie is a different
TT.1> issue.) The words <du2>, <he1>, <chi1> mean, rather "to read",
TT.1> "to drink" and "to eat" respectively. Homophones aside, there
TT.1> is no ambiguity. There is no mandatory object.

Rex F. May wrote:
RFM.2> Really? I was taught otherwise.

Lee Sau Dan wrote:
LSD.3> Then, you've got bad teacher(s).

RFM.2> Is it not true that this default object is -often- there?

I don't understand what you mean by "_this_ default object". What do
you think are the respective "default objects" of the Chinese verbs
<du2>, <chi1> and <he1>? For that matter, what is the "default object"
of the English verbs "to read", "to eat" and "to drink"?

Surely the default object is context-dependent?

LSD.3> It depends on context. <du2 bao4zhi3> "read newspaper" has no books
LSD.3> there. When I drink water, I won't say <he1cha2> "drink tea".
LSD.3> <chi1fan1> "eat rice" means "dining". When I'm eating potato chips, I
LSD.3> won't say I'm doing <chi1fan1>.

RFM.4> That's the point. Is it grammatical to simply say he1 or chi1,
RFM.4> without any object following at all?

Yes, if there is an obvious candidate "default object". The caveat is
that the convention for determining the default object from the context
is different from word to word, language to language. Also, being
grammatically correct and being idiomatic are two different things.

RFM.4> I was taught that such constructions usually are
RFM.4> followed by a 'dummy' object.

I would say this is incorrect. However, you might be able to clarify
by giving a few of this dummy object construction.

RFM.4> Now 'eat rice' means 'dine' rather than 'eat,' but can chi1fan1
RFM.4> take a further object?

No, just as "to dine" is intransitive.

Tak 

--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To                                            takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
  [taode takto ~{LU5B~}]      NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Random Question on Indo-European Languages
    ... On one side you have PIE, but I don't know anything about it, so I equate this side with Vedic Sanskrt, which is close to PIE. ... What would you need is such a process happening simultaneously with all possible morphological features. ... For thinking about such features, I think it is necessary for a discourse to go much back in time, or even further back to the times when language emerged - but then you have theories like Dušan's or Franz's. ... you drink /ty b w a/ ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Math mnemonics
    ... How I want a drink after the eight chapters ... involving quantum mechanics. ... a language they were fairly sure he had no exposure ... mind is amazing. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: PING: Ally.
    ... know the language and correct etiquette for ordering a drink. ... In Edinburgh - or anywhere in Scotland for that matter - that would be ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: PING: Ally.
    ... know the language and correct etiquette for ordering a drink. ... In Edinburgh - or anywhere in Scotland for that matter - that would be ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: trivial question
    ... On 2011-01-31 06:01, dicaduca wrote: ... 1-i drink a little milk every day ... They're both grammatically correct ...
    (alt.usage.english)