본문으로
댓글 쓰기

o / iĝo

글쓴이: Evildela, 2012년 4월 30일

글: 6

언어: English

Evildela (프로필 보기) 2012년 4월 30일 오전 4:14:46

You will often see when reading Esperanto either

La komenciĝo de
La finiĝo de

La komenco de
La fino de

Is there really much difference between the two, both to my mind read the same, and are used completely interchangeably. Is there a time when you would used one but not the other?

gaboflowers (프로필 보기) 2012년 4월 30일 오전 4:39:28

Since, the -iĝ affix means "to become", personally I think that the difference between "komenco" and "komenciĝo" would be the same as the difference between "start" and "starting", and the same with "end" - "ending". Although, I remark that I don't see it as the most grammatically accurate translations (It would be "the becoming to start" - "the becoming to end" ), in English, those would be the most approximate equivalents.

sudanglo (프로필 보기) 2012년 4월 30일 오전 8:27:27

Some of the uses of komenciĝo that you have seen Evildela may just be instances of when it would have been more appropriate to use 'komenco'. Certainly the latter is far more frequently used.

However in principle the diference is that komenco is linked to a more concrete expression of the beginning and komenciĝo serves to focus more attention on the process.

It would be strange to say ĉe la komenciĝo de la libro estas ĉapitro .. . Here en la komenco sounds better.

But you might say antaŭ la komenciĝo de la milito.

Mustelvulpo (프로필 보기) 2012년 4월 30일 오후 12:58:58

In cases where the difference in meaning between words can be debated, there probably is very little difference. When that's the case, it's generally better and clearer to use the simpler form- komenco, fino.

Evildela (프로필 보기) 2012년 5월 2일 오전 1:42:54

I also just noticed, even if off topic.

That enui is listed as transitive in our dictionary while both PIV and RETA VORTARO list it as Intransitive. Though PIV says it can be transitive though that’s worth avoiding. Should this be changed?

darkweasel (프로필 보기) 2012년 5월 2일 오전 5:08:46

Evildela:
That enui is listed as transitive in our dictionary while both PIV and RETA VORTARO list it as Intransitive. Though PIV says it can be transitive though that’s worth avoiding. Should this be changed?
Yes, IMO it should (and I’m going to do so). Especially since (tr) to be tired of something, to be bored is self-contradictory - how can a verb with passive meaning be transitive?

I’m going to completely remove the transitivity marker since the definition already makes it evident that an accusative object wouldn’t make any sense.

다시 위로