Kwa maudhui
Kujibu

Esti and -n

ya zixhwizs, 24 Machi 2009

Ujumbe: 9

Lugha: English

zixhwizs (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 3:44:49 asubuhi

Does the rule of not using -n when using esti apply when it has been modified? I wrote the following:
Mi ĉeestos hokean ludon.
I will attend a hockey game.
But I'm not sure if that's correct, or if this would be more correct:
Mi ĉeestos hokea ludo.
I will be at a hockey game.
Which is the appropriate? Does the preposition prepended to the esti mean the object takes the accusative?

ceigered (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 4:08:37 asubuhi

Actually I want to know this too.

jan aleksan (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 9:12:14 asubuhi

Well, I'm also not sure, but I think it's none of the two, because there is no action done the hockey game (not as in the sentence "I will watch the hockey game").

So, I would say: mi cxeestos al hokea ludo. :-/

Anyway, the use of cxeesti sounds strange to me. Prefer "spekti".

ridulo.gif,

mccambjd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 9:33:07 asubuhi

The PIV and Reta Vortaro give ĉeesti as either transitive or intransitive.

I think this case is transitive.

Mi ĉeestos hokean ludon
means
I will attend a hockey game.

Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 10:30:48 asubuhi

zixhwizs: I wrote the following:
Mi ĉeestos hokean ludon.
I will attend a hockey game.
But I'm not sure if that's correct
You are correct. Ĉe-esti means not just "to be" but "to be at", and so the verb usually involves a connection to an event that one is attending, which becomes the object of the verb.

However, sometimes we may have an event in the background, and wish to say only that someone will be present. In that case ĉe-esti is intransitive. Thus, if you had already been talking about the hockey game, and your friend asked you whether you would go, you might say simply Jes, mi ĉe-estos.

nshepperd (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 11:32:46 asubuhi

It seems to me the accusative should be used whenever there seems to be a clear direction (ie. "transitivity"!).

So mi ĉeestos hokean ludon is not the same as hokea ludo ĉeestos min, the former implies you will move to the game, while the latter implies the game will deliberately be wherever you are!

Do you understand what I mean, Miland? Is this a good rule to use?

jan aleksan (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 11:44:55 asubuhi

...hmmm... I would say... stay at home! lango.gif

Miland (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 11:46:00 asubuhi

nshepperd:It seems to me the accusative should be used whenever there seems to be a clear direction (ie. "transitivity"!).. Is this a good rule to use?
Sounds all right to me, since your 'direction' appears to me to be metaphorical, with the mind of the reader being directed from the verb to its object.

I myself would put it "whenever there is a direct object".

henma (Wasifu wa mtumiaji) 24 Machi 2009 12:00:52 alasiri

It's not exactly that the verb is transitive. You can use -n because you are replacing an "obvious" preposition. This is a valid use for -n. It is possible with ĉeesti because the preposition has to be en/ĉe, but with esti it's not that simple.

You can say:

Mi ĉeestos ĉe kunveno.

Mi ĉeestos en kunveno.

or

Mi ĉeestos kunvenon.

Amike,

Daniel.

Kurudi juu