Minumum Sail Boat For

The word expert

In seguito al piccolo dibattito sul "sì" aperto nel precedente post, pubblico qui l'illuminante testimonianza del Maestro Gaetano Fiorin (Università di Verona) che screma, rifinisce e sigilla il discorso.

Caro Dottore,

spero di non rendere la conversazione unnecessarily sterile. With those lines I wanted to simply discredit the rule "semantics" in favor of the "etymological". Now try to explain better and I hope to demonstrate that the etymological rule is not only empirically but also desirable, especially for advocates of good writing, more intellectually interesting.

First, the "yes" in the phrase "cause" does not seem to behave like the "yes" so common (that is, technically, a "bias"). It can be seen by some distributional properties (ie, syntactic) and semantic. Simply stated, the "yes" seems to behave as a "way". This is not surprising since che il "sì" italiano deriva dal latino "sic" che significa proprio "così". Devo dire che la semantica/interpretazione che proponi tu per "far sì che" è piuttosto interessante, e ci devo riflettere. Per ora non mi convince (per esempio, mi aspetterei che questo tipo di costruzione fosse più produttivo).

Il punto a cui voglio arrivare però è un altro. Assumi per un attimo che il "sì" di "far sì che" non sia un sì propriamente affermativo. Supponi poi che io sia un giovane apprendente dell'Ufficio Metrico desideroso di imparare a scrivere correttamente l'italiano. Chiedo: "in base a quale regola decido di mettere o non mettere l'accento sul 'si'?" Risposta: "l'accento should be put on the 'yes' yes'. I argue that this rule is not a good rule. correctly describes a state of affairs (it is, a generalization), but not uniquely describe a state of affairs. The rule, in fact, says that all instances of "yes" so bring the accent but does not say whether all instances of 'yes' accents are an expression of "yes" yes. Consider now the two possibilities:
i. With the rule means that all instances of "yes" are accented expression of "yes" yes. In this case I have a problem with expressions like "cause." I, young learner, I can not believe that it is a yes yes (I have my reasons) and then decide not to accent. I made a mistake.
ii. With the rule does not mean that all instances of 'yes' accents are an expression of "yes" yes. For implicature, I conclude that there are cases of "yes" accented that are not "yes" affirmative. Thus, the rule leaves me in fear of making mistakes.

But there is a rule that is commonly adopted the rule, we avoid these problems are accented all (and only) "is" derived from the Latin word "sic". This rule allows us to achieve the same result (train the learner in a healthy way) and we avoid captious semantic discussions (if such and such a "yes" is or is not properly so, etc ...). You could argue that then you need to know the etymology of words to write properly. But this, if you think about it, that's what we like about good writing. Natural languages \u200b\u200ballow us to communicate, but also allows us to write something more. Writing is writing and culture allows us not only to transmit a message in itself, but also a cultural value. Not only the words and phrases that represent the symbols to mean something. Even the graphics themselves have the potential to express their independent meanings. Writing in the "yes" with the accent, for example, say something about the history of the language we speak. It seems to me a good reason to write well (and, consequently, per appoggiare il lavoro dell'Ufficio Metrico).