訊息: 10
語言: English
Thomaswarr5 (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月6日下午3:15:49
I understand that it means make the subject do something. For example: "Mi mortigos vin!" I will make you die/I will kill you.
However, the grammar only seems to work on intransitive verbs (verbs that can't have an object). When you use the suffix on a transitive verb - such as "pagi" - you end up with a nominative word, an accusative word, and one that's both. Let me explain.
"I made you pay your bills" would be "Mi pagigis vi/vin viajn bekojn." Does the word "vi" take the accusative or nominative? As it is accusative to me, but nominative to your bills.
Even if you make it "Mi igis vi/vin pagi viajn bekojn", the accusative/nomiative problem still applies.
The "ig" and "iĝ" suffixes make sense to me in all cases but this, so does anyone know if this has a solution, or even if anyone's asked this question before? If not, how would you fix it?
nornen (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月6日下午4:43:51
La hundo mangxas birdojn.
Mi mangxigas al la hundo birdojn.
Mi mangxigas la hundon per birdoj.
Mi mangxigas la hundon. This can mean either that I make the dog eat (something) or I make the dog be eaten (by some other animal).
Thomaswarr5 (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月6日下午7:36:31
One thing I slightly disagree on is this:
You said "Mi manĝigas la hundon" could mean "I make the dog be eaten (by something)" Surely that's "manĝitigas"? I'm using the affix "it" to show it's undergone a process. Obviously, I could be completely wrong, I'm quite new to Esperanto.
nornen (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月6日下午8:17:07
Cf. mangxatigas (same thing without reference to the past)
The complete process is that you take a verb of valence 2 (mangxi with agent and patient), reduce its valence to 1 (mangxati with only patient) and then raise its valence back to 2 (mangxatigi with patient and "causer" ). Thus you eliminate the ambiguity of mangxigi which is of valence 3.
As to mangxigas:
(A) Mi mangxigas hundon al mia serpento.
(B) I feed a dog to my snake.
(C) Mi mangxigas hundon.
(D) I feed a dog (to another animal) = I make a dog be eaten (by another animal)
If you accept that A = B, then it follows without restriction of generality that C = D.
- Kion vi mangxigas al viaj serpentoj?
= Hundojn. Mi mangxigas hundojn (al ili).
Or to put it in more general terms:
When you form the causative of a transitive verb, the agent and the patient cannot be told apart by syntactic means. You need semantics to determine which is which.
----
Another workaround for your original question:
Mi igis vin pagi viajn fakturojn.
Fakturo is an invoice, while beko is the bill of a duck and not a bill you have to pay.
Metsis (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月7日上午7:53:43
Nornen is right, when ri explains the use of manĝigi. You need semantics:
- Mi manĝigas mian hundon : I feed my dog (with something)
- Mi manĝigas mian hundon al mia serpento : I feed my dog to my snake
When it comes to an expression like "I made you pay your bills", I would hesitate to attach -igi to the pay verb. The English use denotes application of force, a must, thus
Mi devigis vin pagi viajn fakturojn.
sudanglo (顯示個人資料) 2018年9月7日下午1:51:20
Here Vi is the object of the first verb and the subject of the second. So the original poster asks whether the Vi should be nominative or accusative. The answer to that is the phrase as written above is correct. This structure is found in usage of verbs without the suffix -ig
Mi aŭdis lin tusi (I heard him cough); Mi vidis ŝin kuri (I saw her run)
However when the 'object' is a clause the verb in that clause determines the case to be used
Mi ne scias, kio ĝi estas ( I don't know what it is); Mi ne scias, kion li volas (I don't know what he wants).
Now when -ig is added to a transitive notion, an ensuing accusative could potentially relate to the ig or the preceding verbal idea.
Often it will be obvious without reference to context. Mi sciigis la komitaton (komitato relates to igi) Mi sciigis la decidon (decido relates to scii).
What you can't do in Esperanto is have two direct objects Mi sciigis la komitaton la decidon*
