შინაარსის ნახვა
პასუხი

Omitting the accusative with iĝ?

Alkanadi-ისა და 7 ოქტომბერი, 2015-ის მიერ

შეტყობინებები: 14

ენა: English

nornen (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 16 ოქტომბერი, 2015 17:51:53

Deleted.

I am truely sorry to have bothered you with a piece of sophistry.

sudanglo (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 17 ოქტომბერი, 2015 12:39:44

Nornen, this is an excellent piece of sophistry - ever thought of a career as a politician.
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 (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 17 ოქტომბერი, 2015 14:25:27

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 (მომხმარებლის პროფილი) 17 ოქტომბერი, 2015 14:34:07

In the case of sciiĝu ĉion, it seems clear to me that we are not dealing with a true direct object but rather we have replaced a preposition with an accusative. So, sciiĝu je ĉio or sciiĝu pri ĉio. This looks to be an archaism and is non-standard today.

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.

ზემოთ დაბრუნება