sudanglo:

A verb with -ig- always has an object (-n) but it doesn't always have to be written/said.

Oh! That might have been better expressed as A verb with -ig- always implies an object (-n), though this may not be expressed.

Well, I learned it with the the German translation of it, but it isn't much better either than the English one.
Maybe someone should revise them.

sudanglo:Sorry, Ganove. Didn't realise you were a beginner. Do not be deflected from the true path by my love of sophistry.

[/quote]No worries, I can handle with that. And I think your sophistry helps to find mistakes, misunderstandings and misreadings and it adds a diferent point of view which, I think, is only advantageous.

sudanglo:The grammar of Esperanto is actually very simple (at least for educated Europeans).

Yeah, most of the grammar is very simple, but Esperanto isn't just grammar
Although I've been learning Esperanto for five months, my active vocabolary is still pretty small.

So I started learning and repeating Esperanto words systematically a month ago, I learn ca. 8 new words per day and according to my learning software my active and passive vocabolary together contain the 318 most common Esperanto word roots now. But just learning is not enough I often need the dictionary in order to have the feeling of being sure it is the right word and its spelling is right. So I've started doing some translation into Esperanto in order to train my active vocabulary.

But I'm getting off the subject.

So far now, thank you for all of your postings and feel free to add further ones, I'm always glad about seeing new postings

Kirilo, if I remember correctly, was kind enough to remind us of what Zamenhof himself said about -ig kun verbaj radikoj in Lingvaj Respondoj 13.

"ekzemple, se mi, sen plua precizigo per “al”, diros “mi manĝigas mian ĉevalon”, neniu dubos pri la senco de la frazo"

How amuzing, in these days of the horse-burger scandals, that should a farmer utter now mi manĝigos mian ĉevalon this takes on a disturbing ambiguity.