Al la enhavo
Respondi

Plaĉi al mi and/or plaĉi min?

de ceigered, 2009-decembro-21

Mesaĝoj: 31

Lingvo: English

darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 17:30:52

(Sorry for the second message, the message would have been too long if I had edited this in)

Note that even the Fundamento (Ekzercaro, §29) says:
[...] se ni pri ia verbo ne scias, ĉu ĝi postulas post si la akuzativon (t. e. ĉu ĝi estas aktiva) aŭ ne, ni povas ĉiam uzi la
akuzativon. Ekzemple, ni povas diri “obei al la patro” kaj “obei la patron” (anstataŭ “obei je la patro”). Sed ni ne uzas la akuzativon tiam, kiam la klareco de la senco tion ĉi malpermesas[.]
Translation: If we don't know of some verb whether it requires after itself the accusative (that is, whether it's active) or not, we can always use the accusative. For example, we can say "obei al la patro" [=*to obey to the father] and "obei la patron" [=to obey the father] (instead of "obei je la patro" [=*to obey PREP the father]). But we don't use the accusative when clarity prohibits this.

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 17:39:13

darkweasel:I believe that this should be convincing that there's nothing bad about using "plaĉi min".
I share your belief, insofar as you're talking about the possibilities of Esperanto grammar. Nevertheless, in my experience using "plaĉi min" generally tends to incur disapproval from diligent speakers, and accusations of "making Esperanto work like your own language instead of Esperanto, just because it can", a sentiment I find myself agreeing with.

It is of course useful to point out that there's strictly nothing wrong with it, but I think it may be worth taking some stock of just how infrequent "plaĉas min" actually is. Plaĉas al mi gets me 1,810,000 results in Google. Plaĉas min gets a mere 1,320. Similarly in Tekstaro all forms of "plaĉi al [pronoun]" get 433 hits. The corresponding preposition-dropped form gets the grand total of 0 results. To me that indicates a clear trend that people ought to follow and indeed respect, even if there isn't any specific grammatical obligation to do so.

darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-22 17:52:41

Of course rareness can be an argument. But indeed, before I started to learn Esperanto, one of the things I liked best about it (and as a result, that convinced me to learn it) was, on lernu!, this text:
# It is not fully democratic, but because it allows much more freedom, it is more democratic than the other systems. The other internationally-used languages act like dictatorships: they require the speaker to put a thought into words using this structure, and not that other one. For example, it is a mistake to say in English he helps to me, while in German, "he helps to me" (er hilft mir) is the only correct form, as it is in Russian (он мне помогает); in French, to use either the English or the German structure, therefore to say il aide moi or il aide à moi, is to expose yourself to ridicule. The fact that in Esperanto, you can say equally li helpas min (English structure), li min helpas (French structure) or li helpas al mi (German and Russian structure), gives a sense of freedom in expression of thoughts, which in my opinion is more respectful of the principles of democracy. The less rigid the structures, the more you avoid the risk of making a mistake, and submitting yourself to mockery or to a feeling of inferiority.

It's the very same thing with "plaĉi". I will probably never use "plaĉi" with the accusative because German uses the dative with it (just as with "helpi"), but English speakers, for whom the accusative is more natural, are, in my opinion, absolutely free to use it.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-23 04:56:19

Ok now it all makes a bit more sense (the use of placxi, not this whole new arguement about who knows what Darkweasel and Tommjames are talking about rido.gif). Thank you all (Horsto, Tommjames, Darkweasel, Miland, dimichxp and any others) for helping make this a bit clearer to me. I was under the impression that "placxi -n" and "placxi al -" were meant to have different meanings, which is what confused me most. DAMN YOU VERB TRANSITIVITY! rido.gif

horsto (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-23 13:21:11

darkweasel:Every verb can have an object if its sense permits this. I find the whole transitivity thing pretty weird - you just have to learn the correct meaning of each verb, and if that meaning allows an object, you're allowed to use it.
Yes of course, if you learn the exact meaning of a verb, then you know if it can have an object or not, that means you know if it is transitive or not. But learning the exact meaning of a verb is in most cases more than only having a translation for the verb and knowing if it's transitive or not. If your memory is good enough you of course should always learn the exact meaning of a verb.
But isn't it easier (for a beginner) to remember this transitive information?

Take for example the verb ruli. The german translation is rollen (to roll), you will easily learn that, but if you want to use the word you have to know if it's transitive or not, because if the verb is transitive (it is in this case) then you must use it this way:
Mi rulas la pilkon.
La pilko ruliĝas.
If it would be intransitive, then you would have to say:
Mi ruligas la pilkon.
La pilko rulas.

The question now is, if it's easier to remember if the verb is transitive, or the exact meaning of the verb, that the subject of the verb makes the object turning around.
Perhaps this depends on the person or the native language of this person, for me it's easier to learn the transitivity.

Donniedillon (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-23 22:56:48

I have to admit that I have no idea which of the above examples are correct. I think that both uses are perfectly clear and I don't think that I would have any difficulty understanding them in conversation.

Rogir (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-23 23:48:22

The first use is correct, the second is wrong. Although many may understand you if you confuse the two, it creates unnecessary ambiguity. And it's wrong.

horsto (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-24 12:49:15

Donniedillon:I have to admit that I have no idea which of the above examples are correct. I think that both uses are perfectly clear and I don't think that I would have any difficulty understanding them in conversation.
The problem is, that in the german language, and I think also in the english, you can use the same verb unchanged in a transitive and in an intransitive context, in Esperanto you can't.
That means, you can't say:
La pilko rulas
because that would not mean that the ball rolls (la pilko ruliĝas), but that the ball rolls something that is not mentioned.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-24 13:06:01

Just curious - hopefully I've got this correctly - assuming all EO roots have a "natural" form such as an adjective or noun:

Adjective/Noun roots, e.g. bela, when converted to verbs are naturally intransitive meaning they describe the state ("state" being loose in meaning here) of an object (e.g. ŝi ja belegas! = intransitive, correct?) and can be made transitive through adding -igi? Correct? (beligi - to make beautiful or to beutify?)

Where as most verb roots when used in their native verb form will tend to be transitive (except for some which might as well be adjective/noun roots but are verb roots for simplicity, e.g. voli), for example "Mi havas dudekmil katojn", and can be made intransitive and in some cases pseudo-past participles by adding iĝi? correct? (Not sure how "havi" would be affected by "iĝi" but I'm guessing "haviĝi" would mean "to be had" or "to be having", either one).

EDIT: see bolded text (thanks to the pointer-outerer!)

darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2009-decembro-24 13:16:42

The solution in such cases is not to mark a verb explicitly as transitive or intransitive, but to give appropriate examples.

If I wrote instruction material for Esperanto in English, I wouldn't give the translation for "ruli" as "to roll", but I would teach it as "ruli ion" = "to roll something". We do the very same in our French course ("demander quelque chose à quelqu'un" = "to ask somebody something"), and this works fine, this way we learn which verbs get a direct object and which require an "à" ("to"). This would work fine for Esperanto too.

With intransitive verbs that would be ambiguous in English (like "to drown"), I would give an unambiguous explanation.
EO: droni | EN: to drown (to die from water)

I believe remembering this is easier than some seeming-arbitrary tag "transitive" or "intransitive".

@ceigered: A verb formed from an adjectival (and supposedly noun) root means "to be xxx". This meaning does not allow an object (or can you *be beautiful something*, that is *beli ion*?), so this verb is intransitive.
-ig- means "to cause to ...". beligi = to cause to be beautiful = to make beautiful

Reen al la supro