Messages: 2
Language: English
Bruso (User's profile) May 11, 2013, 12:38:07 AM
I have some questions about section 4.1.6.2.4 in Jordan's "Being Colloquial in Esperanto". The issue is causative verbs with two objects.
The sentence is "we'll make her buy the sausage".
He labels "ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason" as wrong without saying why. My guess is that putting both objects in the accusative is confusing, that the sentence (grammatically, not logically) could mean "we'll make the sausage buy her."
He labels as right "ni aĉetigos la kolbason al ŝi" and, with only a different word order "ni aĉetigos al ŝi la kolbason".
He labels "ni aĉetigos ŝin je la kolbaso" as "right but rare". I'm not sure why this is any less ambiguous than "ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason", given the undefined meaning of "je".
In a sidebar, he gives "mi igos ŝin aĉeti la kolbason", making the causative suffix into a separate word. He says "This is not actually bad Esperanto, so long as it is not overused. More than once a month counts as overuse."
Actually, I think that's the clearest, and not just because it's more English-like. It's because there's no doubt which object goes with the main verb and which with the causative part.
So, I guess I have three questions.
1. Is the first option (ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason) wrong because it's ambiguous, or for some other reason?
2. Why is "ni aĉetigos ŝin je la kolbaso" any better, given that "je" is ambiguous by nature?
3. Why should "mi igos ŝin aĉeti la kolbason" be used only once per month? Not only does it seem clearer to me, but I thought turning suffixes like -ig into words was more modern and colloquial (as in the title of Jordan's website/book) Esperanto.
The sentence is "we'll make her buy the sausage".
He labels "ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason" as wrong without saying why. My guess is that putting both objects in the accusative is confusing, that the sentence (grammatically, not logically) could mean "we'll make the sausage buy her."
He labels as right "ni aĉetigos la kolbason al ŝi" and, with only a different word order "ni aĉetigos al ŝi la kolbason".
He labels "ni aĉetigos ŝin je la kolbaso" as "right but rare". I'm not sure why this is any less ambiguous than "ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason", given the undefined meaning of "je".
In a sidebar, he gives "mi igos ŝin aĉeti la kolbason", making the causative suffix into a separate word. He says "This is not actually bad Esperanto, so long as it is not overused. More than once a month counts as overuse."
Actually, I think that's the clearest, and not just because it's more English-like. It's because there's no doubt which object goes with the main verb and which with the causative part.
So, I guess I have three questions.
1. Is the first option (ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason) wrong because it's ambiguous, or for some other reason?
2. Why is "ni aĉetigos ŝin je la kolbaso" any better, given that "je" is ambiguous by nature?
3. Why should "mi igos ŝin aĉeti la kolbason" be used only once per month? Not only does it seem clearer to me, but I thought turning suffixes like -ig into words was more modern and colloquial (as in the title of Jordan's website/book) Esperanto.
EldanarLambetur (User's profile) May 11, 2013, 8:50:50 PM
Hi there!
"Ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason" is logically wrong. Think about it like this: the N is used to assign a role to a word in the sentence. By using the N twice like this, you're saying that "ŝi" and "kolbaso" share the same role in the sentence, that they together are the one direct object. But that's not true, while they could both be considered direct objects, they are certainly not part of the same object; they fill different roles in the sentence.
I would say that "je" is only mildly better, because it at least suggests that the words have different roles. But those roles still aren't particularly clear.
Making use of some particular role-assigning word like "al" or "pri" or "per", makes the separate roles vastly more clear. Like in these PMEG examples:
1. Tio memorigas min pri mia infaneco.
2. Tio memorigas al mi mian infanecon.
Notice how either object can get the N, so long as the different roles are made clear by the role-assigning word on the other object.
Lastly, about separating "igi" out. Bear in mind that that book is about telling you how to communicate well in Esperanto. Separating "igi" out is correct Esperanto, but it's often unnecessary. It's neater to have the meaning together with the other verb. And given that most people will expect to hear the "ig" attached to the other verb, you will be more readily understood by doing that!
Hope that helps!
"Ni aĉetigos ŝin la kolbason" is logically wrong. Think about it like this: the N is used to assign a role to a word in the sentence. By using the N twice like this, you're saying that "ŝi" and "kolbaso" share the same role in the sentence, that they together are the one direct object. But that's not true, while they could both be considered direct objects, they are certainly not part of the same object; they fill different roles in the sentence.
I would say that "je" is only mildly better, because it at least suggests that the words have different roles. But those roles still aren't particularly clear.
Making use of some particular role-assigning word like "al" or "pri" or "per", makes the separate roles vastly more clear. Like in these PMEG examples:
1. Tio memorigas min pri mia infaneco.
2. Tio memorigas al mi mian infanecon.
Notice how either object can get the N, so long as the different roles are made clear by the role-assigning word on the other object.
Lastly, about separating "igi" out. Bear in mind that that book is about telling you how to communicate well in Esperanto. Separating "igi" out is correct Esperanto, but it's often unnecessary. It's neater to have the meaning together with the other verb. And given that most people will expect to hear the "ig" attached to the other verb, you will be more readily understood by doing that!
Hope that helps!