clear
{{language.name}} No language found.
swap_horiz
{{language.name}} No language found.
search
sacredceltic
2016-11-14 16:48
*** Protestation contre les tentatives de harcèlement et d'intimidation pour imposer une définition universelle de ce qu'est une phrase ***

A l'initiative de CK, depuis déjà longtemps, les utilisateurs sont intimidés et dissuadés de créer des phrases, parfaitement légitimes et naturelles, qui ne seraient pas des phrases selon des critères non consensuels, définis par CK, tout seul dans son coin.
Je proteste énergiquement contre ces intimidations et le harcèlement qui s'ensuit, comme ici :

https://tatoeba.org/fra/sentences/show/456812

La définition de ce qu'est une phrase n'est pas universelle. Pour moi, une phrase est un ensemble de mots se terminant par une ponctuation et utilisée par les locuteurs d'une langue.
La phrase ci-dessus est prononcée des millions de fois par jour dans ma langue natale et je défie quiconque de le nier.
hide replies
Aiji
2016-11-15 07:58
Loin de moi l'envie de rentrer dans le débat, ces intimidations, définition de phrases, etc.. Par contre, je remarque que le déroulé de ce genre de situation est souvent le même, quelque soit la langue : un utilisateur émet un doute sur la légitimité d'une phrase, l'auteur ou quelqu'un d'autre se défend, parfois les deux camps campent sur leur position, et on finit par perdre son calme et ça part en vrille. Par conséquent, puis-je suggérer une alternative ?

En cas de litige sur une phrase, pourquoi ne pas simplement demander l'avis d'un autre locuteur natif directement ? Si l'avis d'un utilisateur, natif ou non, peut être sujet à question, deux avis concordants de natifs, venant de régions différentes, me paraîtrait plus pertinent que l'avis de cinq étrangers sur la question (même si on peut tous se tromper). Cela éviterait débordements et frustrations, et la question pourrait être vite résolue. Sur la phrase que vous montrez en exemple, si vous me demandez mon avis, c'est très clair : c'est une phrase, énormément utilisée, au même titre que « Bonjour. ».
Si les locuteurs natifs eux-mêmes sont en désaccord, c'est un autre problème mais je pense que le débat se fait ensuite à jeu égal et peut s'effectuer calmement (nous l'avons nous-mêmes, vous et moi, fait par le passé).

Évidemment, je comprends que vu votre niveau de linguistique élevé, vous n'avez pas envie d'être attaqué sur des choses claires et évidentes, surtout par des locuteurs non natifs. Mais encore une fois, je pense que cela bénéficierait à tous d'invoquer un deuxième avis quand la question ne se résout pas après deux ou trois messages (et avant que cela parte en cacahuète).

Qu'en pensez-vous ?
hide replies
sacredceltic
2016-11-15 09:38
>En cas de litige sur une phrase, pourquoi ne pas simplement demander l'avis d'un autre locuteur natif directement ?

Mais là, le contradicteur n'est pas natif. Je lui ai calmement répondu, en argumentant, à sa première réclamation, et il insiste, alors qu'il ne maîtrise pas la langue concernée. C'est inadmissible.
En plus, c'est un habitué de ce harcèlement anti-non-phrases-selon-CK. Ça suffit. Ils n'imposeront pas leur absurde définition complètement étroite de ce que sont les phrases. Qu'ils se le tiennent pour dit et je ne ferai plus désormais preuve d'aucune patience avec eux à ce sujet.
hide replies
arh
arh
2016-11-25 10:24 - 2016-11-25 12:00
Mi reflexión sobre qué es una unidad de lengua aceptable y quién está más capacitado para emitir un juicio.
Toda discrepancia es saludable, por la meditación que suscita, siempre que no se disperse el trabajo del grupo ni desvíe de los objetivos establecidos.
Cierto es que no hay acuerdo general sobre qué es una frase, ni siquiera una palabra. Y qué decir de las controversias existentes sobre categorías como preposiciones, interjecciones, etc.
De hecho, en algunas lenguas orientales, la tradición occidental de construir mensajes armados sobre una secuencia más o menos ordenada de categorías de palabras, marcando incluso esta diferenciación mediante espacios en su representación escrita, simplemente se desmorona. Tampoco parecen necesitar de los matices aspectuales o temporales que proporciona la compleja conjugación verbal de las lenguas latinas, ni la asignación funcional que determina el sistema casual plenamente vigente hoy día en algunas germánicas. Bastante tienen ya con los inabarcables ideogramas que han heredado.
Sin embargo, en todas las lenguas que me son conocidas existen unos modelos o patrones que los hablantes asumen como ortodoxos e identifican con un determinado significado y apropiados para expresiones concretas y, aparte, otros elementos deícticos que, por su propia naturaleza, admiten multitud de significados, frecuentemente apoyándose en soportes extralingüísticos, como los gestuales, en función del contexto y la intención comunicativa de cada hablante, pero que carecen de uno específico o propio.
Así, yo puedo usar 'NO', cuando simplemente respondo negativamente a una pregunta, o puedo con este mismo '¡NO!', modificando ligeramente mi entonación y acaso haciendo uso de algún gesto de desagrado, instar a alguien a que no haga determinada cosa o deje de hacerla. En ambos casos sigue siendo una unidad dotada de significado completo. Pero, si se analiza fríamente, ¿es realmente una palabra, una locución, un sintagma, una frase ...? Me parece que es simplemente un acto comunicativo.
Si nos centramos en este tipo de expresiones, probablemente acabaríamos teniendo tantas interpretaciones como quisiera otorgarles cada uno de los hablantes particulares.
Si el objetivo del sitio es recabar, con vocación universal, un gran número de ejemplos de uso 'generalista' a los que docentes y discentes, o simplemente personas interesadas, puedan recurrir cuando los necesiten, parece más conveniente fomentar la captación de mensajes de percepción 'ortodoxa' para no complicar su ulterior comprensión a los usuarios.
Respecto de quién debe moderar o supervisar la idoneidad de las contribuciones cuando surgen desavenencias, todos los colectivos suelen dotarse instintivamente de personas que, por su experiencia y conocimientos, generalmente adoptan decisiones mejor aceptadas por la mayoría, en la certeza de que nunca satisfarán a todos.
Los hablantes nativos, por el mero hecho de serlo, y salvo que sean especialistas reputados en el tema, no ostentamos ningún plus de autoridad, más allá de la familiarización con nuestra lengua materna, en ocasiones restringida a un cierto ámbito vital o profesional. De hecho, en muchos países existen entidades que velan por un mantenimiento razonable de su lengua patrimonial para que siga sirviendo de vehículo de comunicación útil y universal, conscientes de que el lógico descuido de los hablantes propicia cambios de todo tipo, a menudo no motivados por una necesidad comunicativa real.
hide replies
Objectivesea
2016-11-26 11:01
Here's a rough English translation of #arh’s recent Spanish message:

My reflection on what an acceptable language unit is and who is most capable of making a judgment. Discrepancies are salutary because they provoke reflection, as long as the group’s work is not dissipated or deviated from established objectives. Certainly there is no general agreement on what is a sentence, or even a word, what to speak of existential controversies over grammatical categories such as prepositions, interjections, etc. Indeed, some Eastern languages simply collapse the Western tradition of forming messages structured more or less as an ordered sequence of word categories or even of representing the differentiation through word spaces in writing. Nor do they seem to require the aspectual or temporal nuances provided by Romance languages’ complex verb conjugations or the functional case marking still observed in some Germanic ones. They have enough on their plate with their inherited and inscrutable ideographs.

However, in all languages known to me, there are models or patterns that speakers assume as standard to convey a certain meaning appropriate for concrete expressions and other deictic elements that by their nature allow multifarious meanings, often based on extralingual supports such as gestures, depending on the context and each speaker’s intention of, but lacking a unique meaning on their own. Thus, I can use “No” for simple negation or I can slightly modify my intonation as “No!” perhaps employing an accompanying gesture of dislike for certainty or to urge a person to stop doing something. In both cases it remains a unit endowed with complete meaning. But coldly analyzed, is it really a word; an adverb, adjective or noun phrase; or a sentence? To me, it seems but an instance of communication.
If we focus on these types of expressions, we would probably end up having as many possible interpretations as each particular speaker might like to impart.

If the aim of the site is to collect, with universal application, many “generalist” examples for teachers’, students’ or other interested persons’ use when needed, it would seem convenient to encourage contributions in those forms perceived as most standard, in order not to complicate their further understanding of users.

As to who should moderate or supervise the appropriateness of contributions in the event of disagreements, all groups tend to attract people who, through experience and knowledge, generally adopt decisions well accepted by the majority — acknowledging, of course, that they may never satisfy everyone. The mere fact of being native speakers, unless they are recognized specialists in the subject, does not grant authority beyond familiarity with the mother tongue, sometimes restricted to a certain discipline or professional field. In fact, many countries have institutions that prescribe the recommended use of the heritage language so that it may continue to serve as a useful and universal vehicle for communication, aware that speakers’ neglect of logic may lead to all kinds of changes, some not motivated by a genuine communications need.
Objectivesea
2016-11-15 09:58 - 2016-11-15 20:13
Here's a rough English translation of Aiji's message:

Far be it from me to enter into the debate as to these intimidations, definition of sentences, etc., but I've noticed that this kind of situation often unfolds in the same way, whatever the language: a user expresses a doubt as to the legitimacy of a sentence, the author or someone else defends himself, sometimes both sides become fixated on their position, someone ends up losing his calm and it starts getting out of hand. Therefore, might I suggest an alternative?

In case of a dispute about a sentence, why not simply seek the advice of another native speaker directly? If the opinion of a user, native or not, may be in question, two concurring opinions of natives from different regions would appear more relevant to me than the opinion of five foreigners on the question (even if we could all be mistaken). This would avoid misbehaviour and frustration, and the issue could be quickly resolved. On the sentence you show as an example, if you ask my advice, it is very clear: it is a sentence, much used, in the same way as «Hello.».

If the native speakers themselves disagree, this is another problem, but I think that the debate will then play out on an equal footing and can take place calmly.

Obviously, I understand that considering your elevated level of language, you do not want to be attacked on things that are clear and obvious to you, most especially by non-native speakers. Once again, I think it would benefit everyone to call for a second opinion when the issue does not resolve after two or three messages (and before it all takes a wrong turn).

What do you think ?
hide replies
Pfirsichbaeumchen
2016-11-15 17:29 - 2016-11-15 17:31
I would like to believe that we are not among enemies but among friends here.

If one person asks whether a sentence is not lacking a subject and a predicate in order to be complete, I think that is not an attack. It is just a question. They can ask because maybe they do not know.

If the owner of that sentence explains that it is usually said that way and perfectly natural, I think it should be accepted, and the discussion can end.

Indeed ellipses are a part of every language, and there are many cases where a complete sentence, on the contrary, would be unnatural. There are also cases where in English (for example) you would use a full sentence, but in German (for example) you would not, especially in a dialogue situation.

Different natives may have different opinions. I think friendly discussion can help find improvements. Sometimes others have better ideas than I have, and in the German corpus we usually offer them to each other, but when I am convinced of something, no one tries to force anything on me.

I think it is important to be reasonable, however. A good example sentence should be helpful and provide enough context to show how to use it. So one shouldn't post a sentence just to make a point, either.
hide replies
AlanF_US
2016-11-15 19:25
+1
NM30
2016-11-15 21:58
+1,000
sacredceltic
2016-11-23 22:34
>If one person asks whether a sentence is not lacking a subject and a predicate in order to be complete, I think that is not an attack. It is just a question.

But I answered that and he insisted, although he knows nothing about the language.

>If the owner of that sentence explains that it is usually said that way and perfectly natural, I think it should be accepted, and the discussion can end.

But it didn't !!!
sacredceltic
2016-11-24 08:07
>A good example sentence should be helpful and provide enough context to show how to use it.

If we are to follow this principle, 90% of sentences should be deleted. Even a "Yes" requires context...
I won't abide by this principle.
hide replies
Pfirsichbaeumchen
2016-11-24 20:48
“I won't abide by this principle.”

This really is all right. It is your choice.