In ReVo, they give some examples such as:

"kontrakti liveradon por la armeo."

- NPIV2002 warns against this kind of the usage of 'kontrakti' as a transitive verb. It seems that according to NPIV2002, such a sentence should be:

"Kontrakti pri la liverado por la armeo."

So, you could have a sentence such as:

"Kontrakti kun ekstera kompanio pri liverado por la armeo."

----

NPIV2002 probably warns against the use of 'kontrakti' in a transitive way, because its definition is given as:

"To exchange legal written promises concerning a joint enterprise" (Interŝanĝi laŭleĝajn skribitajn promesojn pri komuna entrepreno).

However, I can see how it's tempting to use 'kontrakti' in a transitive way. But then that makes me wonder why you only see examples such as "kontrakti liveradon" (= kontrakti pri la liverado) and not "kontrakti kompanion" (= kontrakti kun kompanio)...

sudanglo:Legally, subcontracting is different to outsourcing.

In subcontracting there is always a third party. A contracts with firm B, and B subcontracts with C.

In outsourcing, work or manufacture that was originally done in-house is transferred to an external organization.

There is no third party, only a contract between the Firm and the supplier.

Yes, there does seem to be a slight difference between 'subcontracting' and 'outsourcing'. It might well be good to reflect this in Esperanto, too.

My original made-up imaginary word was 'elfontigi', which gives the impression of vomiting contracts overseas.

Maybe that is the best one if subkontrakti is no good. Eksterdomigi doesn't give the right impression either.

If eksterigi didn't sound odd in this context it would be the obvious solution.

The meaning of outsource is the opposite of internigi - bring the work in-house -, but for some reason I can't put my finger on, eksterigi doesn't seem to convey the idea of rendering something mal-interna/eksterna.

NPIV actually gives a definition for elfontigi which is fari ke fonto elŝprucu - turn on a fountain.

I think it might be better to use fonti transitively without the el and the ig. Ni fontas la motorojn el Hindujo - we source the motors from India.

But that describes the state of affairs after you have outsourced rather than the act of outsourcing.

Domo is a bit wider in its meaning than domestic building. Think of Urbodomo and Stacidomo. Also in the bible it says Domo de Davido - the house of David, so thinking of the company as a domo doesn't seem much of a leap. I certainly think that endoma will do for in-house.

I am beginning to understand: there is some argumentation about whether a verb can be transitive or intransitive in Esperanto. This page caused me to understand my confusion as an English speaker, as I have read more than one post in this thread about whether a verb should be either.

[url= http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/transitive.html] http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/transitive.h...[/url]

When the head word in the dictionary is a noun, you may find the verb in some cases with ig or without, in transitive use.

For example:
ruino - ruinigi and ruinita
limo - limigi and limi sin.
loko - loki gastojn ĉetable and translokigo
lumo - lumigi and lunlumita strato.
paniko - ne panik(ig)u la ĉevalojn.

sudanglo:When the head word in the dictionary is a noun, you may find the verb in some cases with ig or without, in transitive use.

For example:
ruino - ruinigi and ruinita
limo - limigi and limi sin.
loko - loki gastojn ĉetable and translokigo
lumo - lumigi and lunlumita strato.
paniko - ne panik(ig)u la ĉevalojn.

Loko appears to be both a transitive and intransitive verb, no? Loki is being used in a transitive sense on guests, but yet it also is being used with 'ig' in a transitive way. If that is the case, the why did I get the impression that a verb had to be either/or from reading the other page I linked to? An 'ig' ending implies that the verb is intransitive and therefore needs a special ending to become transitive?

It's a simplification, Komenstanto.

It's justified when teaching Esperanto to English speakers because in English we often use the same word for transitive and intransitive uses, whereas in Esperanto different words are use.

The cat drowned, we drowned the cat, but in Esperanto droni and dronigi.

The classic example in Esperanto where we use the same verb transitively and intransitively is Fumi. Mi fumas pipon - la kamentubo fumas. (Note, the headword is fumo)

With most verbs however there's a difference to be learnt. So it tends to get emphasized in course books.

Important to know the difference between morti and mortigi. You won't be put in prison for the former.

The whole issue is not so much one of grammatical class as one of semantics (meaning).

sudanglo:It's a simplification, Komenstato.

It's justified when teaching Esperanto to English speakers because in English we often use the same word for transitive and intransitive uses, whereas in Esperanto different words are use.

The cat downed, we drowned the cat, but in Esperanto droni and dronigi.

The classic example in Esperanto where we use the same verb transitively and intransitively is Fumi. Mi fumas pipon - la kamentubo fumas.

With most verbs however there's a difference to be learnt. So it tends to get emphasized in course books.

Important to know the difference between morti and mortigi. You won't be put in prison for the former.

Is there a list of exceptions? I take things very literally, and I read:

In Esperanto, all verbs are either intransitive or transitive — either one or the other, but not both. Of course, Esperanto provides ways of shifting back and forth between these two actions. If a verb is intransitive, we can add the suffix -IG- to make it transitive; if it is transitive, we can add the suffix -IĜ- to make it intransitive.

http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/intransitive....

I am not certain I understand fumas by that rule. I have a certain autistic view of things. I would probably want to say "mi fumigas pipon" and use fumi as an intransitive verb.

It looks like you are literally smoking and on fire the other way and pipe happens to be in the sentence.

I'm not sure that it is fair think of these things as exceptions.

The rule, if you like, in Esperanto is that you stick enough of the elements together to convey your meaning.

So you study how -ig and -iĝ are used, and you learn the meaning of words.

English often attaches multiple meanings to the same word. Esperanto has a tendency to separate out meanings into separate words.

It is this, rather than grammar rules, that mean you sometimes need an ig or an iĝ to make the meaning clear.

Blua means blue.

So if you were heavy-handed in dyeing or colouring something you might look at the result and say Ĝi tro bluas nun - Its too blue now.

If you were doing a pregnancy test you might say Ĝi ankoraŭ ne bluiĝis - it hasn't turned blue yet.

If you were adjusting the colour warmth on a TV set, someone might say Ne tro bluigu la imagon - Don't make the picture too blue.

Now does that seem to you to be about grammar or about meaning?