Tästä sisältöön
Vastaa

Sekigi vs. Sekigxi vs. Seki

ludomastro :lta, 3. toukokuuta 2016

Viestejä: 38

Kieli: English

ludomastro (Näytä profiilli) 3. toukokuuta 2016 21.40.59

Hello everyone. I feel like I'm getting a handle on igi versus igxi; however, I ran across a usage on Duolingo that made me wonder.

The English text was "You can dry fruit." The expected Esperanto response was "Vi povas sekigi fuktojn."

In this case, why do I need -igi? I would have assumed that since "seka" is dry, that "seki" would mean "to dry." However, I looked in vortaro.net and "seki" isn't a verb. Why not?

Also, on a related note, what would sekigxi mean? My gut says "to dry out" as in "the apple dried out" / "la pomo sekigxis." Is that right? If so, what's the difference?

nornen (Näytä profiilli) 3. toukokuuta 2016 21.55.55

La pomo sekigxis. = the apple dried out.
Mi sekigis la pomon. = I dried the apple.
La pomo sekis. = the apple was dry.

Mi intencis sekigi la sxtofon, tamen gxi jam sekis, cxar gxi sola sekigxis (estis sekigxinta).

eshapard (Näytä profiilli) 3. toukokuuta 2016 23.12.27

I think this is a case of using the clearest version of the verb. And with this particular verb, just adding a plain verb ending (-i, -as, etc.) would be ambiguous.

If you turn seka into a verb (seki), then you sort of have two options: to dry as in to become dry, or to dry as in to dry something else out.

So we have a dilemma: what would seki mean?

But both of these meanings are made explicit by using -ig- or -iĝ-:
  • sekiĝi = to dry as in to become dry
  • sekigi = to dry as in to dry something else out
If the infinitive form is unambiguous, as in miro (wonder) and miri (to wonder), then you can go ahead and use it. But in the case of seka, the verb form (seki) doesn't suggest a particular meaning (there are two possibilities) so it isn't a good word.

The context of your sentence would actually make it clear what you mean, though. Clearly, we get along OK in English without two forms of the verb 'dry'.

BTW: The clearest way to say 'The apple was dry' is probably: La pomo estis seka. Or some variation of that.

nornen (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 2.57.31

The PMEG also tackles this topic. 7.2.4. Verbaj finaĵoj - Verboj el ne-agaj radikoj.
Se radiko per si mem montras econ aŭ staton, la verba formo normale signifas “esti tia” aŭ “agi kun tia eco”
"Normale"...

Alkanadi (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 7.04.52

This is what I think. I hope someone will correct me if this is wrong.

Verbs are either transitive or intransitive in Esperanto. Seki is intransitive, which means that it requires ig to make it transitive.

Wow. I searched the tekstaro and this verb is not used at all.
sekis = 3 hits
sekas = 0 hits
sekos = 0 hits
seki = 0 hits

Vi povas seki fruktojn = You can get dry from fruit.
Vi povas sekigi fruktojn = You can dry fruit.

nornen (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 7.19.06

Alkanadi:Vi povas seki fruktojn = You can get dry from fruit.
Vi povas sekigi fruktojn = You can dry fruit.
Vi povas seki(gxi) per fruktoj.
Vi povas seki(gxi) kauxze de fruktoj.
Vi povas seki(gxi) kiel fruktoj.

As you stated, the verb seki is intransitive. So why do you add an accusative object?

Alkanadi (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 7.33.49

nornen:
Alkanadi:Vi povas seki fruktojn = You can get dry from fruit.
Vi povas sekigi fruktojn = You can dry fruit.
As you stated, the verb seki is intransitive. So why do you add an accusative object?
Intransitive verbs can't take an accusative object?

nornen (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 7.41.24

Alkanadi:Intransitive verbs can't take an accusative object?
This is quite the textbook definition of "intransitive" (in nominative-accusative languages).

To be precise: intransitive verbs never have external direct objects. In Esperanto direct objects are marked with the accusative case.

You can indeed find nominal phrases marked with the accusative case next to intransitive verbs in Esperanto, those are however never external direct objects, but generally adverbials of movement (target).

"iri" is an intransitive verb. However you can say "mi iras Parizon". However, "Parizon" is not a direct object of "iri", but it denotes movement/direction.

Alkanadi (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 7.52.40

nornen:"iri" is an intransitive verb. However you can say "mi iras Parizon". However, "Parizon" is not a direct object of "iri", but it denotes movement/direction.
What you said makes sense. You are probably right.

Couldn't it be said that Mi sekas fruktojn denotes direction as well. You are dry on account of the fruit. You are dry because the fruit was there.

Mi sekas bantukon = I became dry because of the towel

nornen (Näytä profiilli) 4. toukokuuta 2016 8.02.56

Alkanadi:
nornen:"iri" is an intransitive verb. However you can say "mi iras Parizon". However, "Parizon" is not a direct object of "iri", but it denotes movement/direction.
What you said makes sense. You are probably right.

Couldn't it be said that Mi sekas fruktojn denotes direction as well. You are dry on account of the fruit. You are dry because the fruit was there.

Mi sekas bantukon = I became dry because of the towel
You can say that. It just isn't Esperanto.

Mi sekas bantukon = I became dry because of the towel
Hence: Mi ne povas vidi vin nebulon = I cannot see you because of the fog.

The accusative case has many uses, however "reason" or "instrument" are not among them.

"I became dry" = "mi sekiĝis" or "mi eksekis", but not "mi sekis"

Takaisin ylös