Al la enhavo
Respondi

Manki

de Stefano B, 2008-januaro-15

Mesaĝoj: 13

Lingvo: English

Stefano B (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-15 07:24:16

The dictionary here at Lernu defines this verb as "be missing, be lacking".

What I can't figure out is if it is transitive or intransitive. Do I say "10 dolaroj mankas al mi" or "Mi mankas 10 dolarojn"?

In English I would say "I'm lacking 10 dollars". But what confuses me is that another verb "placxi" is defined as "be pleasing", and when that verb is used you always see something along the lines of "La muziko de Jerry Lee Lewis placxas al mi". So if the verb placxi is used that way, it seems like the verb manki could be used in the same way and it would mean "10 dollars is lacking to me". But to me "Mi mankas 10 dolarojn" (I am lacking ten dollars) also makes sense.

Is there any rule in esperanto regarding transitive and intransitive verbs? Are there any verbs which always require the preposition "al" in certain contexts?

Thanks,
Stefano

mnlg (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-15 07:37:12

Stefano B:The dictionary here at Lernu defines this verb as "be missing, be lacking".

What I can't figure out is if it is transitive or intransitive.
Intransitive. "Vi mankas al mi". "Mankas dek eŭroj en mia monujo"
is there any rule in esperanto regarding transitive and intransitive verbs?
There is no way to tell them, if this is what you mean. You have to memorize them. Often a verb is made to accept a direct object by attaching a preposition, so if that is the case, there's a good chance that the verb is transitive:

Mi parolas pri esperanto.
Mi priparolas esperanton.

As for "designated" prepositions depending on context, I wouldn't really know. Perhaps there are but I can't think of any example that could not be expressed in another way, possibly without that preposition, or with a different one. Do you have anything specific in mind?

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-15 11:02:02

Stefano B:The dictionary here at Lernu defines this verb as "be missing, be lacking".

What I can't figure out is if it is transitive or intransitive.
If a verb means to be something, it doesn't need an object, i.e. it is intransitive. Thus ĝoji means to be joyful, and so is intransitive.

So here, since manki means to be lacking, it is intransitive.

But the root won't always make this clear. Then we need ig for affecting the state of an object, which is therefore transitive, e.g. sanigi; or iĝ for becoming something, i.e. intransitive e.g. saniĝi.

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-15 17:29:53

As an additional note, if you look at the Esperanto definition of a word, you can almost always tell if it is transitive or intransitive. If the Esperanto definition includes a verb with -iĝ- then the verb is probably intransitive. If you happen to know the transitivity of the words in the Esperanto definition, that will help as well. The context of the definition will help a lot. For example, you might ask whether "boli" (to boil) is transitive or intransitive (both, in English - water boils, but I boil an egg). It's clear from the Esperanto definition that it's intransitive, because it says "regarding water: to have a temperature of 100° C, to transition from liquid to gas, from water to vapor"

Stefano B (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 01:47:14

So how would you say "I'm boiling eggs" in Esperanto? Mi boligas ovojn?

Stefano B (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 01:54:54

mnlg:

Intransitive. "Vi mankas al mi". "Mankas dek eŭroj en mia monujo"

There is no way to tell them, if this is what you mean. You have to memorize them. Often a verb is made to accept a direct object by attaching a preposition, so if that is the case, there's a good chance that the verb is transitive:

Mi parolas pri esperanto.
Mi priparolas esperanton.

As for "designated" prepositions depending on context, I wouldn't really know. Perhaps there are but I can't think of any example that could not be expressed in another way, possibly without that preposition, or with a different one. Do you have anything specific in mind?
Thanks for the explanation.

The only thing specific that I had in mind was the verb "manki" in the sense of to be lacking something. For example, "Our class lacks ten people today" or "Ten people are missing from class today."

I guess if "manki" is always intransitive, this sentence would have to be translated "10 personoj mankas al nia klaso hodiaux," right?

My question was about Esperanto verbs in general, but the only one I particularly had in mind was "manki". I thought there might be an easy way to know which verbs in Esperanto are transitive and which aren't.

Stefano B (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 02:17:24

Miland:

If a verb means to be something, it doesn't need an object, i.e. it is intransitive. Thus ĝoji means to be joyful, and so is intransitive.

So here, since manki means to be lacking, it is intransitive.

But the root won't always make this clear. Then we need ig for affecting the state of an object, which is therefore transitive, e.g. sanigi; or iĝ for becoming something, i.e. intransitive e.g. saniĝi.
Thanks for the response.

So could you make "manki" transitive by adding ig or iĝ?

For example, if I wanted to say "I have almost finished the book. I lack six more pages."

The verb is defined as "be missing, be lacking". If I say in English "I am missing my blue pencil," it seems like the words "am missing" there are acting as a single verb, "to be missing".

So I guess I still don't why the verb cannot take a direct object simply because it is defined as "to be lacking/missing".

How could I say "I'm missing my blue pencil" in Esperanto?

awake (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 06:54:43

Stefano B:

Thanks for the response.

So could you make "manki" transitive by adding ig or iĝ?
Yes, I think you can use those suffixes, but the shades of meaning might be subtle.

"Mi mankigas la pomojn." seems like a correct sentence to me. I would translate it as "I caused the apples to be lacking (perhaps by eating them, throwing them away, etc...).

Something like

"Mi volis iri al la kinejo, sed mia energio mankiĝis."

also seems reasonable to me. I'd translate that as

I wanted to go to the movies, but my energy became lacking (but I ran out of energy). Of course that's a very awkward phrasing. I'd say something like "..., sed mi tro laciĝis" = but I became too tired, instead.

Stefano B:
How could I say "I'm missing my blue pencil" in Esperanto?
Mia blua krajono mankas.

Mi ne havas mian bluan krajonon.

Mi ne povas trovi mian bluan krajonon

Diable! Kie estas mia damnita krajono!? ridulo.gif

mnlg (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 08:27:30

Stefano B:So I guess I still don't why the verb cannot take a direct object simply because it is defined as "to be lacking/missing".
The sentence "I miss my pen" seems to have (at least) two distinct meanings, roughly "I wish my pen was with me" and "I fail to hit my pen".

In Esperanto they are translated as "mia skribilo mankas al mi" (or perhaps "mi sentas mankon de mia skribilo") and "mi maltrafas mian skribilon".

Not necessarily transitivity is preserved across languages along with the general meaning.

This goes both ways; consider for instance "I listened to you" and "mi aŭskultis vin" (direct object in Esperanto, not so in English)

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2008-januaro-16 10:31:50

Stefano B:So how would you say "I'm boiling eggs" in Esperanto? Mi boligas ovojn?
Yes.

Reen al la supro