sudanglo:If you get in a tizzy as to whether an acusative of direction is required with some verb (eg ekloĝi or transloĝiĝi) you can always check your intuition (ie NOT needed with ekloĝi en) with the Tekstaro, provided the verb in question is common enough to get a good number of hits.

…

Thank you, Sudanglo. That is obviously a valuable tool and I will learn to use it more effectively. It seems my (American) intuition may get me into trouble here and cause me to use the accusative inappropriately. I think of it as a process, not a state, as a "taking up of a new residence." I often heard while overseas that some of us Americans are too quick to move to action. I may be an example of the problem. Thanks for your insight and correction.

erinja:ek- does not carry the connotation of completion.

But I wouldn't use -n with "ekloĝi". -n denotes movement, but to me, "loĝi" isn't a verb that makes sense in terms of movement. Living/dwelling isn't movement, if you will, so the idea of adding movement to living doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me (thus ekloĝi -n comes off sounding strange).

Note that my answer would be different if the verb were "transloĝiĝi" (to move [in the sense of going to live in a new place]). It still has the loĝ/ root, but the "trans" has added the idea of movement, so I could accept "transloĝiĝi en novan apartamenton" (although "transloĝiĝi al nova apartamento" would be my preference)

Thank you. This makes perfect sense to me now. I will remember that ek- isn't movement while trans- is. That will save me a lot of mistakes. And "al nova apartemento" is certainly more elegant. Dankon denove!

I often heard while overseas that some of us Americans are too quick to move to action

It's a fault of the language. English packs a lot of meaning into the verb and has a very rich verbal vocabulary.

On the other hand, a propensity to action might explain why Engish verbs are so differentiated.

Here's a list from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English of different ways of saying 'piediri':-

amble saunter stroll wander lurch stagger totter hobble limp shamble waddle shuffle lumber trudge prance strut stomp pad creep tiptoe march stride pace stomp plod sneak stamp.

I heard once that if you translate a French news report into English it comes out as sounding much more aggressive and full of action.

Perhaps the resolution of the Euro Crisis (which seems to drag on and on) would come about more quickly if the Europeans held their meetings on it in English.

Sometimes the whole issue of the accusative of direction can become quite subtle. Suppose you want to translate He placed the sandwich next to him on the bench. Accusative or not?

It seems to make a difference whether you use meti or loki. Meti+sur/apud/en seems invariably to require the accusative of direction. With loki the issue is not clear cut.

And Metita seems more static than Metis. Lokita leans to the static even more so.

sudanglo:

…

Perhaps the resolution of the Euro Crisis (which seems to drag on and on) would come about more quickly if the Europeans held their meetings on it in English.

Ah, you are a diplomat! Tell me, in what language do they conduct the meetings? Perhaps they should use Esperanto instead!

sudanglo:Sometimes the whole issue of the accusative of direction can become quite subtle. Suppose you want to translate He placed the sandwich next to him on the bench. Accusative or not?

It seems to make a difference whether you use meti or loki. Meti+sur/apud/en seems invariably to require the accusative of direction. With loki the issue is not clear cut.

And Metita seems more static than Metis. Lokita leans to the static even more so.

I confess I had not run against this yet, but I understand the differences to which you refer. A subtle language, ĉu ne?

sudanglo:Sometimes the whole issue of the accusative of direction can become quite subtle. Suppose you want to translate He placed the sandwich next to him on the bench. Accusative or not?

Ooooh, tricky. My take on it: If the sandwich is already on the other end of the bench and he moves the sandwich closer to him, not accusative since it's already on the bench (even though it's moving). If he has the sandwich in his hand and he then places it onto the bench, accusative.

Language is messy like that.

After the terrific suggestions, I have adapted my original sentence to read,

"Ĉi-vespere mi havis ankoraǔ unu de tiuj konversacioj kun mia filo, ke memorigas al mi, kial mi tiel ĝoje anticipas lian forflugo de la gepatra nesto por ekloĝi sendependiĝe aliloke."

Does it work better now?

Ĉi-vespere mi spertis/travivis ankoraǔ unu el tiuj konversacioj kun mia filo, kiuj rememorigas al mi, kial mi tiel ĝoje anticipas lian forflugon de la gepatra nesto por ekloĝi sendepende aliloke."

sudanglo:Ĉi-vespere mi spertis/travivis ankoraǔ unu el tiuj konversacioj kun mia filo, kiuj rememorigas al mi, kial mi tiel ĝoje anticipas lian forflugon de la gepatra nesto por ekloĝi sendepende aliloke."

Thanks again!