Messages: 14
Language: English
nornen (User's profile) October 16, 2015, 5:51:53 PM
sudanglo (User's profile) October 17, 2015, 12:39:44 PM
As a side effect, this derivation may cause a change of valency, but not necessarily:Yes, demonstrated. But this does not establish that sciiĝi can take a direct object (ie like ekscii). That needs a separate proof.
The reply to your argument would be - may cause a change in valency and in this case does.
More supportive of the validity of sciiĝi ion would be a list of iĝi verbs that do take a direct object to demonstrate that this is normal.
Actually, is the term valency directly relevant here? Aren't we simply concerned with whether an iĝi verb can be transitive?
Matthieu (User's profile) October 17, 2015, 2:25:27 PM
nornen:They are not transitivizers or intransitivizers.All verbs formed with ig are transitive, all verbs formed with iĝ are intransitive.
PMEG does say that Zamenhof sometimes used sciiĝi as a transitive verb, but this is clearly a weird use that shouldn't be imitated today.
Tempodivalse (User's profile) October 17, 2015, 2:34:07 PM
Zamenhof might have been influenced by Russian, where you would say узнать всё, where всё is an accusative. But I would translate this verb as ekscii, transitive, not sciiĝi.