Thinking about ditransitive verbs in another post, I remembered the 'igi'-rule.

It says that every 'verb + igi' construction needs a direct object.
But what happend if I add the suffix 'igi' to a verb which is already transitive?
Does it becomes ditransitive?

For example 'to wake somebody' means 'veki iun'.
If I now want to say 'to make person A to wake person B' could I say 'vekigi personon B al persono A'?

It looks odd, but I even found an example [source]:

Mustelvulpo:

AlexN:Ne-ekzemplo:
veki - senca verbo
vekiĝi - ankaŭ senca verbo
vekigi - oni povas imagi la sencon, sed ĝi ne estas natura.

Mi vekis la infanon.

La infano vekiĝis.

Mi vekigis al ŝi la infanon. (Mi petis aŭ postulis ke ŝi veku ĝin.) En ĉi tiu senco, la frazo 'Mi petis ke ŝi veku la infanon' pli plaĉas al mi.

Actually, I'd rather use a construction like 'igi personon A veki personon B', since it is less confusing then those mentioned above.

My next thought was, could I do so with ditransitive verbs, too?
What would they become, then, tritransitive?

For example 'to give someone something' means 'doni ion al iu'.
If I now want to say 'to make person A to give Person B something' I'll get problems with the objects, since Esperanto just offers two different objects.
Maybe something like 'donigi ion al persono B por (?) persono A', but I guess this doesn't sound good at all.
I guess I shouldn't use this construction, since it is quite confusion.
Here, I'd even 'more rather' use a construction like 'igi personon A doni ion al personon B'.

What do you think? Leave a comment here.

Thanks for your help!

I think ditransitivity doesn't work so well in Esperanto, it's far more suited to a language with more complex word-marking, or more stringent word order. One can simply step around it with a subclause.

For instance:
Mi kaŭzis, ke ŝi veku la infanon.

This doesn't have any of the ambiguity of "Mi vekigis al ŝi la infanon.", which to me would sound something like "I woke the child to her." (?), the speaker being unaware of the transivity of 'veki' and just wanting to make it as clear as possible.

Mi infanvekigis ŝin.

Arr, again I forgot to press send after the preview. So, again, but shorter.

This topic has already been discussed a few times, search for "manĝigi" in the forums.

Also have a look at the 13th Lingva respondo.

I heard that the additional accusative-object becomes the dative-object, when "transitivating" an already transitive verb. So something like

I make you hear the song.

would be

Mi aŭdigas al vi la kanton.

but i prefer separating it:

Mi igas vin aŭdi la kanton.

It's getting really weird if you use the transitive form of "transitivated" adjective:

I make you clean the room.

would be

Mi purigigas al vi la ĉambron.

PS: May i ask why you placed this question in the English forum?

Fenris_kcf:I heard that the additional accusative-object becomes the dative-object, when "transitivating" an already transitive verb. So something like

I make you hear the song.

would be

Mi aŭdigas al vi la kanton.

You can make both arguments the direct object, so "Mi aŭdigas vin per la kanto" is OK, too.

Fenris_kcf:It's getting really weird if you use the transitive form of "transitivated" adjective:

I make you clean the room.

would be

Mi purigigas al vi la ĉambron.

Double -ig- in my opinion is hardly acceptable, at least it is so unusual, that it would distract the attention away from the content to the form.

Fenris_kcf:PS: May i ask why you placed this question in the English forum?

Yes, I would prefer a discussion in E-o, too - if it would't have been already amply discussed.

It says that every 'verb + igi' construction needs a direct object.

Where did you find this rule?

Kiu purigos? Who is going to do the cleaning?

As regards vekigigi this can be easily avoided - it is somewhat inelegant.

Fenris_kcf:PS: May i ask why you placed this question in the English forum?

I suppose it must be because Ganove can't write very well in Esperanto, which left him the choice between German, English or Spanish (according to his profile). The English speaking community is the biggest out of those three languages, so perhaps that's why he chose this forum?

Chainy:

Fenris_kcf:PS: May i ask why you placed this question in the English forum?

I suppose it must be because Ganove can't write very well in Esperanto, which left him the choice between German, English or Spanish (according to his profile). The English speaking community is the biggest out of those three languages, so perhaps that's why he chose this forum?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.
I am still a beginner in Esperanto and I don't feel that comfortable in Esperanto at the moment as I do in English or in German.
Spanish wasn't an option at all, because I've forgotten most of my active vocabularies.
So I decide for the English forum, since there are more active writers than in the German one.

sudanglo:

It says that every 'verb + igi' construction needs a direct object.

Where did you find this rule?

Kiu purigos? Who is going to do the cleaning?

As regards vekigigi this can be easily avoided - it is somewhat inelegant.

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

As for purigi, I took it that it means 'to make something clean'.
Then the infinitive should be 'purigi ion' in Esperanto, since one causes something to become clean.

I guess there's a different meaning between the intransitive 'to clean' and the transitive 'to clean something'.
'What is he doing? - He is cleaning. He's causing cleanliness. He is doing the cleaning.' This highlights the process.
'What is he cleaning? - He is cleaning the windows. He's making the windows clean. He's causing the windows to become clean.' This highlights the object being affected by the process.

If the root word is an adjective it behaves differently as if it were a verb.
Obviously you can drop the object of 'adjective root + igi' verbs but not of 'verb root + igi', for example "la viro faligas arbon" and "la virino kurigas la ĉevalon" [source].

Then there a three possible solution to solve this trasitivity problem:
1st) The adjective root of the transitive 'purigi ion' changes to a verb root.
2nd) The suffixe 'igi' changes its meaning between 'taking on the root's propperty' and 'making something to take on the root's propperty'' dependly of transitivity. Then the 'igi' rule is wrong.
3rd) I misunderstood the entire 'igi' construction.

I consider 2nd more probable than 1st, since it is very unsual that a word class changes.
As for 3rd, I can't say anything about, so please wise me up.

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.

Sorry, Ganove. Didn't realise you were a beginner. Do not be deflected from the true path by my love of sophistry. The grammar of Esperanto is actually very simple (at least for educated Europeans).