讯息： 14
语言: English
Kirilo81 (显示个人资料) 2015年10月7日上午8:34:27
johmue (显示个人资料) 2015年10月7日上午8:35:49
Alkanadi:Why is the accusative omitted in this case?For the same reason it is not used in the sentence "Mi ŝatus esti kuracisto."
Eble mi ŝatus fariĝi kuracisto.
The thing is that "kuracisto" is not an object of an act, but a property of the subject. If you say "Mi estas kuracisto." or "Mi fariĝas kuracisto." you are not talking about an act that you perform on a doctor but you are talking about a property that you have or will have.
sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2015年10月7日上午11:05:12
Examples from the Tekstaro:
Marta videble ŝanceliĝis momenton (dum momento)
oni povis vidi la terlangon etendiĝi kilometrojn en du direktoj (je kilometroj)
Kiam iu aliĝas organizon (al organizo)
li eble ankoraŭ decidiĝos tion fari (tion object of fari)
However, there are some dubious examples in the Tekstaro, where the author seems to be treating the iĝ verb as being capable of taking a direct object - even the following from Z.
Ekrigardu tra fendeto kaj sciiĝu ĉion
Though you could argue that this is just the accusative instead of a preposition.
But after fariĝi, always the nominative.
eshapard (显示个人资料) 2015年10月15日下午7:34:36
Alkanadi:Why is the accusative omitted in this case?Fariĝi is an intransitive verb. So it doesn't take a direct object. Therefore it can't place a noun in the accusative case.
Eble mi ŝatus fariĝi kuracisto.
You're basically saying that possibly you'd like to be made [into] a doctor. You're not making the doctor (direct object/accusative), you're having something (yourself; a university, perhaps?) make you into the doctor (indirect object).
Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2015年10月16日上午2:58:04
The rule of thumb is that you don't use the object accusative with esti and iĝi (and words that end in -iĝi) because these verbs do not deal with transitivity - the predicative is referring back to the subject (kiu fariĝas kuracisto? - Mi, ne aliulo).
Perhaps you see that the accusative case often comes right after a verb, and are trying to generalise. But the real issue is (in)transitivity.
(This sort of thing is so much easier to explain to Slavs...)
bryku (显示个人资料) 2015年10月16日上午6:33:40
sudanglo:Zamenhof was Polish Jude (at least he spoke Polish living in Warsaw for many years), so sometimes he unintentionally used Polish grammar in Esperanto sentences. This one seems to be the case. In Polish we say:
Ekrigardu tra fendeto kaj sciiĝu ĉion
dowiedz się wszystko/wszystkiego
dowiedz się = sciiĝu (Polish się = -iĝ-)
wszystko = ĉion (accusative)
erinja (显示个人资料) 2015年10月16日下午3:09:01
sudanglo:-igx- can sometimes take a meaning similar to ek-. I'd put this in that category.
However, there are some dubious examples in the Tekstaro, where the author seems to be treating the iĝ verb as being capable of taking a direct object - even the following from Z.
Ekrigardu tra fendeto kaj sciiĝu ĉion
"Ekrigardu tra fendeto kaj eksciu cxion" makes perfect sense.
...having said that, no, I wouldn't use "sciigxu" in this way. But I can sort of see where it is coming from, even with no background in Polish.