Saluton,

I've been studying Esperanto for a few weeks now, building up my vocabulary and getting to know the grammar/syntax of Esperanto.

I recently stumbled upon the verb diri and the dictionary here noting it's transitive. That caused me to have a flashback to another conlang group I knew.

Back when I was active with that other group they had a rather lengthy discussion in their email forum about what the direct object of one of their versions of the transitive verb "to say/to tell" was.

For a time they debated if the direct object was what was being said, to whom the person was speaking, or both.

So to end my flashback of that past discussion (or revive that old discussion here, I'm not sure which), are both of the following correct or is just one correct, and if only one which of them?

Mi diris saluton. (I said hello)
Mi diris vin. (I told you)

Dankon

Technically they can both be used, just not together. "Mi diris tion al vi", "mi diris vin pri tio". In practice, however, the latter version is extremely rare, and especially for beginners, I would not recommend it.

I believe the direct object would be what is said. You speak "to" someone or "about" something, as in English. That is my intermediate-level understanding, anyway.

Mi diris vortojn. I said some words.
Mi diris al vi. I spoke to you.
Mi diris pri futbalo. I talked about football.

(I've just noticed I've used three different English verbs there!)

I think the second example just given - "mi diris vin pri tio" would be like the American phrase "I wrote you", which in the UK we would have as "I wrote to you". Possibly that is used when Americans are speaking Esperanto, as it is a verb form they are more used to using?

Desideratist:I think the second example just given - "mi diris vin pri tio" would be like the American phrase "I wrote you", which in the UK we would have as "I wrote to you". Possibly that is used when Americans are speaking Esperanto, as it is a verb form they are more used to using?

The general idea is that the accusative ending can be used to get rid of almost any preposition. "mi enuas lin" means "mi enuas pro li", I am getting bored because of him. At first however it might be better to stick with the "traditional" objects and leave these examples to a time when you feel you have mastered the basics of the language.

Everything mnlg said is right. You can use the -n to express an indirect object, but it is not always advisable to do it, for the purpose of clarity. Especially for beginners I don't recommend it, because beginners sometimes lack the experience with the language, to be able to tell what is clear and what isn't. So like mnlg, I recommend that beginners use prepositions for an indirect object (so "Donu al mi la libron", not "Donu min la libron")

Desideratist:Mi diris pri futbalo. I talked about football.

On this topic, this doesn't really mean "I talked about football". It means "I said about football". It sounds equally as strange in Esperanto as it does in English; I would say "Mi parolis pri futbalo" ("I talked about football")

In general, diri = to say, paroli - to speak, to talk.

So "Ni parolis pri la festo" (We talked about the party), "Mi parolis kun ŝi hieraŭ" (I talked with her yesterday), "Mi parolas Esperanton" ("I speak Esperanto)

But: "Mi diris ion" (I said something), "Ŝi diris ke ŝi venos" (She said that she'll come)

In verbs that take two objects, it is normally the person that is the INDIRECT object and the thing that is the DIRECT one. Thus, in "Give me some water", "me" is the indirect object and and "some water" the direct one. Same with "He told us a joke", "I taught John grammar", "The child asked his mother a question", "Forgive us our trespasses" etc.

In English, the indirect object can USUALLY be introduced by a preposition: "I gave my wife some money" = "I gave some money to my wife" etc. But in the last two examples above, that would hardly be possible.

In Esperanto, the direct object takes the accusative ending -n and the indirect object is always introduced by a preposition. "Donu AL mi akvon", "Li rakontis AL ni shercon", "Mi instruis AL li gramatikon", "La infano metis demandon AL sia patrino", "Pardonu AL ni niajn pekojn" etc.

It is often possible to turn the sentence around so that the personal object becomes direct, but this may require using a different verb. "Supply us with water", "he let us in on the joke", "I briefed him on grammar", "the child pestered his mother with questions", "absolve us of guilt" are all possible. Whether the prepositional phrases are to be considered indirect objects is a matter of terminology.

That can also be done in Esperanto, but it may require changing the verb. "mi instruis lin pri gramatiko" or "pardonu nin pri niaj pekoj" are perfectly possible and correct; but "donu al mi akvon" or "li rakontis al ni shercon" cannot be turned around unless the verb is changed ("provizu min per akvo", "li sciigis nin pri la sherco"). In particular, "doni" (=give) and "diri" (=say) ALWAYS take "al" before their direct object (the recipient of the thing given or of the words said). "Mi diris vin" meaning "I told you" is simply WRONG, as is "mi donis vin", unless it means "I gave you to somebody else".

On the other hand, "mi diris saluton" is perfectly correct, but should strictly speaking be written with quotation marks around "saluton" - for it means "I uttered the word 'saluton'". The sentence is comparable to "li diris 'dio mia!'" - where the direct object is the QUOTED PHRASE "dio mia!", exclamation mark and all. And being a phrase, it does not take the accusative ending. The reason for the final -n in "li diris saluton" is that it is part of the greeting "saluton" itself (just as it is part of "bonan tagon" and the like, where "I wish you" is understood).

If I succeeded in confusing you, just remember that "mi diris vin" meaning "I told you" is WRONG, and that with "diri" (=say, tell) and "doni" (=give) the accusative is NEVER used to express the person TO whom something is given or said.

Angelos:In particular, "doni" (=give) and "diri" (=say) ALWAYS take "al" before their direct object (the recipient of the thing given or of the words said).

I do not agree. Also note that the direct object, as far as I know, relates to the entity assuming the accusative ending (in Esperanto terms it is the object of the sentence which is not introduced by a preposition).

"Mi diris vin" meaning "I told you" is simply WRONG, as is "mi donis vin", unless it means "I gave you to somebody else".

I also do not agree. It could be seen as unorthodox or eccentric, but according to what I consider Esperanto grammar to be, it can be accepted. There are many verbs that are quite "liberal" when it comes to accusative endings used to get rid of prepositions. Consider for instance "pagi"; vi povas pagi fakturon, klienton, servon, monon, eŭrojn, or vi povas pagi pro fakturo, al kliento, por servo, per mono, laŭ eŭroj.

On the other hand, "mi diris saluton" is perfectly correct, but should strictly speaking be written with quotation marks around "saluton"

Again, I do not agree; it depends on the context. If Ludoviko has just said "hej" to me and I don't know what he meant, he could say "mi simple diris saluton". Normally it is expected to see "doni" instead of "diri" but I would accept that as well.