Mesaĝoj: 40
Lingvo: English
arkadio (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-24 21:25:54
(1) La glaso iĝis rompita,
and
(2) La glaso rompiĝis,
had identical meanings. The expert told me that, not only was (1) was bad style, but that it didn't really make sense. To him, "iĝi rompita" meant something like "to become by itself broken by something else." I bowed to his greater wisdom and experience --- especially about the bad style --- but I have come across iĝi + passive participle in high places. From PMEG:
(3) "malfermiĝi = iĝi malfermita"
And from Jen Nia Mondo, Lesson 16:
(4) "...and we could say "La domo iĝis refarbita."
Is there a clear rule about this?
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-24 21:41:49
However I think what this experienced Esperantist is overlooking is that a passive participle adjective like "rompita" doesn't necessarily have to indicate that someone or something else did the breaking, you can describe a glass as rompita and it can just as well mean the glass is in a broken state, as much as it can mean the glass got broken by someone or something else. In light of that I wouldn't say that something like "iĝis rompita" necessarily indicates a becoming action caused by someone else, although I agree that it's a convoluted way of doing things when you can just say "rompiĝis" for the middle voice or "estis rompita" for the passive, in the normal way.
Rogir (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-24 23:57:21
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 06:14:49
You cannot use *-iĝit. But you can well use -itiĝ, as in for example la pordo malfermitiĝis ("the door became opened"), which is an absolutely logical way of saying this.
jan aleksan (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 08:53:21
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 10:35:51
Rogir:If you mean to say that a glass is broken, but that it is not necessarily caused by anyone, you should say rompiĝinta.Not correct. It would be perfectly acceptable and indeed more usual to discover a broken glass and say something like "ho, la glaso estas rompita" in preference to rompiĝinta. The iĝinta forms are used to show that something came into a certain state. If you merely want to show the state itself, without any implication of how or why that state came into being, the ita forms are more usual. Search around in Tesktaro and you'll find numerous results for rompita where the emphasis is just on the state, and not on how the subject same into that state, and indeed where it would be against-sense to suppose an external agent for the breakage ("rompitaj kruroj" just one example, from Homoj sur la Tero).
That said, there's nothing wrong with the iĝintaj forms and they do tend to get used for some words more than others. Enamiĝinta, geeziĝintaj are ubiquitous examples. I think it's pretty clear though that adjectives like rompita, malfermita etc are perfectly fine for a general state. This is the very reason PMEG describes malfermiĝis as "iĝis malfermita"; malfermita is perfectly fine to show an open state, without implying an opener.
arkadio (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 15:55:06
For the record, I think the iĝi verbs are just fine. However, since pure adjectives like "blanka" commute with iĝi (i.e. iĝi blanka = blankiĝi) I wanted to extend that property to passive participial adjectives like "rompita." But, as has been pointed out, one can live without that construction.
However I think what this experienced Esperantist is overlooking is that a passive participle adjective like "rompita" doesn't necessarily have to indicate that someone or something else did the breaking, you can describe a glass as rompita and it can just as well mean the glass is in a broken state, as much as it can mean the glass got broken by someone or something else.Yeah, I accept that. For practical purposes, that works well enough. It bothers me a little because it makes "rompita" into a quasi-homonym. (And I thought that Esperanto was supposed to be homonym-free.) And finally, if you can assign "rompita" these two shades of meaning, can you do that for "rompiĝinta" also?
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 15:59:16
arkadio:(And I thought that Esperanto was supposed to be homonym-free.)It's not, and it's not supposed to be. Many Esperanto words have a few different meanings. Often that's because the respective word in national languages is ambiguous - like artikolo, which can be a grammatical article (English the, Esperanto la) or an article in a magazine.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 16:11:33
arkadio:can you do that for "rompiĝinta" also?I would say no, "rompiĝinta" shows that the subject became broken, I think it's pretty clear in not having any connection to an agent who performed the breaking. In that sense it is perhaps the clearer word to use, but in my experience it isn't the usual way of showing a state of being broke. I wouldn't personally use it unless I wanted to somehow draw focus to the fact of having become broke, rather than simply being broke.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-februaro-25 17:48:52
http://groups.google.be/group/soc.culture.espera...
Bertilo en soc.culture.esperanto:En Esperanto "malfermita" povas esti uzata, ĉu oni volas montri nur la staton de tia pordo, ĉu oni volas emfazi, ke iu ĝin malfermis. Ambaŭokaze oni diras: "La pordo estas malfermita."Of course malfermi is a different verb to rompi, but hopefully the above should be enough to banish any doubt that may still exist as regards "broken by someone" and "broke".
Translated: In Esperanto "malfermita" can be used whether you want to show just the state of the door, or to emphasize that someone opened it. In both cases you say "La pordo estas malfermita".