Žinutės: 21
Kalba: English
nornen (Rodyti profilį) 2015 m. kovas 6 d. 23:50:33
Tempodivalse, first of all I want to thank you for the interesting topics and reflections you have posted on this forum. They really show great interest in the language and languages in general and have instigated interesting discussions.
Concerning the topic of transitive and intransitive verbs, I think that in Esperanto (as in most indoeuropean languages) transitivity is not a trait of a verb (or a form thereof) but of a clause. Take for instance these two Zamenhovian examples from the Fundamento:
Ni vidas per la okuloj. = Nakoo'ilok rik'ineb' qu.
Ni vidas la sunon. = Naqil li saq'e.
From the verbal root il we derive the intransitive form ni vidas = nakoo'ilok which ends in –Vk[1] and transitive form ni vidas ion = naqil which ends in the bare stem. Those forms are not interchangeable; i.e. exchanging them also changes the meaning of the clause: Naqil rik'ineb' qu means Ni vidas ĝin per la okuloj and Nakoo'ilok li saq'e means Ni, la sunoj, vidas. (which is nonsense, because we aren't suns).
So my first conclusion is that in Esperanto transitivity is not a trait of a verb or a verbal form. Hence, we shouldn't ask “Are egali and simili transitive?”, but “Can egali and simili form a transitive phrase?”
Second, in order to answer the question where to say (I) ?Mi similas stultulon or (II) ?Mi similas stultulo, I would drop the whole idea of transitivity and go directly to the underlying subcategorization frame of the verb (or the forms thereof).
Both possibilities might make sense. In (I), similas would have a sc-frame [NP+Acc] for the semantic role Theme. In (II), it would have a sc-frame [NP] for the semantic role State. Both would be congruent with Esperanto grammar as the [NP+Acc] Theme in (I) would be a classic accusative object, and [NP] State in (II) would be a classic predicate noun over the subject.
Subcategorization frames are in most languages quite random [2]. The only way to assert which one is “correct” or “recommended” is to check its use by other speakers. If the tekstaro shows hits for (I), but not for (II), well, I'll use (I).
Summa summarum, there are no transitive or intransitive verbs, but each verb has its own sc-frames. Also one verb can have different frames which are semantically different: compare for example kredi [NP+Acc] with kredi [PP:head=je]. There is no way to guess or derive logically those frames, but we have to analyse past usage.
----
[1] To be exact, –Vk marks antipassive.
[2] look at, look for, look after
Concerning the topic of transitive and intransitive verbs, I think that in Esperanto (as in most indoeuropean languages) transitivity is not a trait of a verb (or a form thereof) but of a clause. Take for instance these two Zamenhovian examples from the Fundamento:
LLZ:Ni vidas per la okuloj […].The same verbal form vidas is used in the first phrase intransitively, but transitively in the second phrase. This is not like this in all languages. There are indeed languages where transitivity is marked morphosyntactically on the verbal form itself. Take for example Q'eqchi':
En la tago ni vidas la helan sunon […].
Ni vidas per la okuloj. = Nakoo'ilok rik'ineb' qu.
Ni vidas la sunon. = Naqil li saq'e.
From the verbal root il we derive the intransitive form ni vidas = nakoo'ilok which ends in –Vk[1] and transitive form ni vidas ion = naqil which ends in the bare stem. Those forms are not interchangeable; i.e. exchanging them also changes the meaning of the clause: Naqil rik'ineb' qu means Ni vidas ĝin per la okuloj and Nakoo'ilok li saq'e means Ni, la sunoj, vidas. (which is nonsense, because we aren't suns).
So my first conclusion is that in Esperanto transitivity is not a trait of a verb or a verbal form. Hence, we shouldn't ask “Are egali and simili transitive?”, but “Can egali and simili form a transitive phrase?”
Second, in order to answer the question where to say (I) ?Mi similas stultulon or (II) ?Mi similas stultulo, I would drop the whole idea of transitivity and go directly to the underlying subcategorization frame of the verb (or the forms thereof).
Both possibilities might make sense. In (I), similas would have a sc-frame [NP+Acc] for the semantic role Theme. In (II), it would have a sc-frame [NP] for the semantic role State. Both would be congruent with Esperanto grammar as the [NP+Acc] Theme in (I) would be a classic accusative object, and [NP] State in (II) would be a classic predicate noun over the subject.
Subcategorization frames are in most languages quite random [2]. The only way to assert which one is “correct” or “recommended” is to check its use by other speakers. If the tekstaro shows hits for (I), but not for (II), well, I'll use (I).
Summa summarum, there are no transitive or intransitive verbs, but each verb has its own sc-frames. Also one verb can have different frames which are semantically different: compare for example kredi [NP+Acc] with kredi [PP:head=je]. There is no way to guess or derive logically those frames, but we have to analyse past usage.
----
[1] To be exact, –Vk marks antipassive.
[2] look at, look for, look after