Повідомлення: 12
Мова: English
tommjames (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 16:56:02
For those of you who don't mind a bit of a read, please look here and see my forum post (its too long to actually fit on the page here).
http://zz9pza.110mb.com/igx.htm
It's about the iĝ suffix and how it can/can't be used in a passive sense. Your thoughts, comments, corrections etc would be appreciated!
Ĝis
mnlg (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 17:34:57
My understanding of -iĝ- is that it shows a becoming, a change of state, but not necessarily (or perhaps not limited to) one that happens all by itself. A good counter-example that comes to my mind now is mi nomiĝas Ludoviko. Someone else (in the worst case, myself) gave me the name of Ludoviko, or decided to use that name to address me. I find it difficult to imagine a situation when all that happened by itself.
Regardless of the fact that usually with "nomiĝi" the agent is never specified (how often do you see "mi nomiĝas Ludoviko de aliaj"?), I think the point still stands, that is, if -iĝ- allows for a specification of a change or a becoming that can actually be driven or performed by other, numerable or specifiable forces/agents, then I see nothing wrong in introducing them when necessary. And the appropriate preposition is indeed "de".
This is my opinion after 13 years of esperanto, but I am open to debate it, of course
tommjames (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 17:53:32
I think the point still stands, that is, if -iĝ- allows for a specification of a change or a becoming that can actually be driven or performed by other, numerable or specifiable forces/agents, then I see nothing wrong in introducing them when necessary. And the appropriate preposition is indeed "de".I'm inclined to agree, however what are your thoughts on the potential ambiguity I mentioned? That is:
Assuming we constructed a phrase like La branĉo rompiĝis de la vento, how could we then express the same passive sense without mentioning the causer of the action? In the phrase La branĉo rompiĝis we would have no way of knowing if what is being expressed is the regular "it broke by way of itself" sense, or if it was a passive construct along the lines of "it got broken".It seems to me a passive construct needs to be identifiable as such regardless of whether or not the agent is present. In cases where it isn't, as in the above example of La branĉo rompiĝis I don't see how you'd be able to determine if the branch is breaking by itself, or if some other unnamed person/thing broke it.
tommjames (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 18:06:11
Why don’t you just use a passive participle instead?I guess it's a matter of preference. I generally prefer to use simple forms wherever possible, and I don't like the lack of symmetry in the participles whereby the passive form can be used to describe an action ASWELL as a state. How would you know the intended meaning? "Context" is the usual answer, but there are some cases where its hard to fathom it out.
"La branĉo estis rompita" suggests to me that the branch was in a state of having been broken, in a time prior. This may be completely not the thing I wish to express. So I'm unhappy with having to use it.
mnlg (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 18:08:28
tommjames:I'm inclined to agree, however what are your thoughts on the potential ambiguity I mentioned?La branĉo rompitis.
Finer meanings call for finer language
Seriously, if you are worried that by using a certain form you leave too much room for ambiguity, I think the burden is on you to adopt a clearer form. Just reform the passive, and say something like "La branĉo abrupte/senkaŭze/memfare fariĝis rompita", or ditch it and go with "Io rompis la branĉon".
Miland (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 19:34:08
tommjames (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 21:22:27
La branĉo rompitis.Perfect!
I had in fact considered that form previously, but I thought (wrongly) that it means exactly the same as "La branĉo estis rompita", so I avoided it. I can see the logic of it now though, the -it- suffix shows the passivity, and the construct itself is a simple verb form which shows no participle-like state, only that the passive action happened. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a million
mnlg (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 21:53:37
tommjames:Actually, to the best of my knowledge, it *does* mean the same. It's just less clear and personally I would never use it outside poetry or word games.La branĉo rompitis.I had in fact considered that form previously, but I thought (wrongly) that it means exactly the same as "La branĉo estis rompita"
Rogir (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 23:04:23
tommjames (Переглянути профіль) 18 листопада 2008 р. 23:09:04
mnlg:Well what I meant by 'not the same' was more to do with what it emphasizes than its actual meaning. I saw it as emphasizing the action of being broken, rather than the state of having been broken.tommjames:Actually, to the best of my knowledge, it *does* mean the same. It's just less clear and personally I would never use it outside poetry or word games.La branĉo rompitis.I had in fact considered that form previously, but I thought (wrongly) that it means exactly the same as "La branĉo estis rompita"
I think actually though that this form isn't what I was looking for at all, as -it- by itself doesn't merely mean passive, rather "past" passive, which implies some kind of state that comes after the actual action.
The problem I have with something like "La branĉo abrupte/senkaŭze/memfare fariĝis rompita" is that this seems to describe something for which "iĝ" was already specifically designed for. Seems to me that any additions we'd make ought to be to indicate the passivity, rather than the lack of it.
Perhaps something like "La branĉo fare rompiĝis" would do the trick. I don't know a great deal about "fare" but I've been advised it can work in this way, and it would seem to make the point about passivity quite well. Do you think it works ok?
One interesting thing I've noticed is that this potential for ambiguity doesn't actually exist with certain kinds of transitive verbs. For example "murdi". Since the act of murdering by definition requires both a murderer and a victim, it would be quite obvious that something like "murdiĝis" should be interpreted as passive, since it wouldn't really have any other meaning if it wasn't. The same isn't really true of a verb like "rompi". Something can break without there being an identifiable breaker, and for that reason one might be confused as to what "rompiĝis" actually meant.
In the end though I think I'm just going to do what it seems everyone else does, and just say "La branĉo estis rompita". I don't like it but it does seem that it is by far the most common way of showing the action, despite its obvious confusability with the state of having been broken.