المشاركات: 386
لغة: English
T0dd (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 5:57:33 م
tommjames:Though on stylistic grounds I can well imagine that using a preposition in the way Miland suggests, which helps to preserve the intransitive idea inherent to the verb, could be the better option.How is the intransitive idea inherent to the verb? I just don't see that at all. When we dine, we always eat something. The "on" in the English "dine on" is nothing more than a stylistic placeholder; it does no semantic work. I suspect that we're saying that vespermanĝi is intransitive simply because it may often used without mentioning the direct object.
Of course, we do this all the time with "eat" in English. "I ate before the lecture". This doesn't make the verb "to eat" somehow less transitive.
Even per is questionable here, since we could also have Ni vespermanĝis per pladoj el papero.
Again, I don't question that certain forms are common; I merely question whether that fact makes them obligatory, when there's no actual rule being violated.
I really think ReVo has this one right, and NPIV has it wrong.
(An example already mentioned: Iom da and kelke da are much more common than kelka, when applied to continuous quantities, such as coffee or time. Nonetheless kelka kafo and kelka tempo are perfectly valid expressions.)
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:19:09 م
T0dd:We dine on something..I would say that "dine" means "feed" here, and therefore "on" has semantic value, and makes what we eat an indirect object.
T0dd: "I ate before the lecture". This doesn't make the verb "to eat" somehow less transitive.I would say that it makes it the equivalent of "fed", and therefore intransitive.
Finally, as people keep citing ReVo, it should be pointed out that ReVo is the product of amateurs and ne-akademianoj. It does not have the same authority as PIV 2005. Even though that was not my main argument.
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:21:12 م
T0dd:Is there such a thing as a compound root in Esperanto? I'd have thought that was an oxymoron.I would say that "root" can be used in more than one way. Here I am using it to mean "a word without functional suffixes", so that
Word:root::compound word:compound root.
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:27:17 م
darkweasel:I think that the following Ekzercaro passage should make it clear that use of vespermanĝi with -n does not violate any rule.This is a good point. We can theoretically use the accusative ending in place of a preposition with indirect objects. Whether it is a good idea, or good style, is another matter, for another debate!..ni povas diri “obei al la patro” kaj
“obei la patron” (anstataŭ “obei je la
patro”)..
T0dd (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:34:31 م
Miland:What's the direct object then? A verb that has an indirect object also has a direct object. Even "speak" has an implicit direct object. To speak is to say something; to speak is to say something to someone.T0dd:We dine on something..I would say that "dine" means "feed" here, and therefore "on" has semantic value, and makes what we eat an indirect object.
The English verb "to feed" has two distinct meanings: To give food to someone or something, and to eat. The preposition "on" in that case acts as a marker, distinguishing the two. "I fed corn" implies an indirect object. "I fed on corn" doesn't. Neither does vespermanĝi.
Finally, as people keep citing ReVo, it should be pointed out that ReVo is the product of amateurs and ne-akademianoj. It does not have the same authority as PIV 2005. Even though that was not my main argument.I understand. Their position may be correct, but I've yet to see a persuasive argument for it.
Are there other examples of verbs that are transitive on their own, but become intransitive in compounds?
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:41:46 م
T0dd:I would say that there isn't one in the explicit sense. As with "speak", it is implicit.Miland:What's the direct object then?.. Even "speak" has an implicit direct object.T0dd:We dine on something..I would say that "dine" means "feed" here, and therefore "on" has semantic value, and makes what we eat an indirect object.
T0dd:The English verb "to feed" has two distinct meanings: To give food to someone or something, and to eat.I would disagree with the second, unless you are using "eat" in the sense of "have a meal". In which case the object is indirect and implicit.
T0dd:Are there other examples of verbs that are transitive on their own, but become intransitive in compounds?How about paroli (to speak) and elparoli (pronounce)?
razlem (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:52:40 م
T0dd (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 6:56:41 م
Miland:"To feed on corn" is to eat corn, no?T0dd:
T0dd:The English verb "to feed" has two distinct meanings: To give food to someone or something, and to eat.I would disagree with the second, unless you are using "eat" in the sense of "have a meal". In which case the object is indirect and implicit.
[/quote]Mi parolas Esperanton. Transitive.T0dd:Are there other examples of verbs that are transitive on their own, but become intransitive in compounds?How about paroli (to speak) and elparoli (pronounce)?
Mi elparolas ĉiun vokalon. Transitive.
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 7:11:01 م
razlem:Pronounce is transitive. You pronounce something.Indeed, point well taken; I cited an example of root intransitive/compound root transitive. But it is at least an example of transitivity changing in the process of compounding.
T0dd:Mi parolas Esperanton. Transitive.Paroli can also be used in an intransitive sense: La malsanulo ne povis paroli.
Miland (عرض الملف الشخصي) 9 مارس، 2011 7:12:22 م
T0dd:"To feed on corn" is to eat corn, no?.Agreed. I would say that "on" has semantic value here, making corn an indirect object.