if transitivity has something to do with the meaning, and isn't an arbitrary convention, then when the meaning is the same across languages, transitivity should be the same too.

Now that's an interesting line of reasoning, Todd.

A quick scout around the Eurpean languages that have a verbs like 'to breakfast' and 'to lunch' would, applying this criterion, settle the issue.

In the Vikipedia article on matenmanĝo (yes I know, not the most reliable source for language matters) there are two instances of matenmanĝi followed by the accusative.

En la diversaj mondoregionoj la homoj matenmanĝas malsamajn nutraĵojn.

En Azio, oni plej ofte matenmanĝas rizon anstataŭ pano.

This usage strike me however as being at the margin and not enough to make the dictionary entry transitive.

Change this to Kiuj volas matenmanĝi la panon kaj kafon and it seems distinctly odd.

More natural would be Kiuj prenos la kafon kaj panon por matenmanĝo.

Miland:

T0dd: Other evidence of intransitivity: plaĉita is never used.

Mi trovis "placxita" en la "Wiktionnaire". Sed tiu-cxi ne sxajnas tre fidebla, cxar mi ankaux trovis la jenon:

I found "placxita" in la "Wiktionnaire". But that one doen't seem very reliable, because I found also this:

estita Forme de verbe estita /es.ˈti.ta/ 1. Participe passé passif du verbe esti.

(tiel!)

sudanglo:
Seems to me that the English forum should be for questions from beginners whose Esperanto isn't sufficient to allow them to compose their question in Esperanto ...

... let alone to question Esperanto.

That's why we should use esperanto forum for those debates, and get the opinion of esperantists whose english is not sufficient ... to allow them to compose their question in english!

Especially as the opinion of speakers of other languages can be interesting for this topic: as far as I remember, spanish use dative rather than accusative (like in french or english)when the object is human. So I would be happy if some hispanophone could confirm or infirm that.

I think the discussion is here because it was started here by a non-Esperanto speaker, razlem.

Anyway, I've done some researching and thinking and I realize that I'm wrong on a key point. On some other points, I'm not wrong.

1. Any verb that has an indirect object has a direct object, in any language, due to the definition of these terms. Since only transitive verbs have direct objects, it follows that only transitive verbs have indirect objects.

I wasn't wrong about that.

2. Direct and indirect objects aren't the only kinds of objects. erinja pointed this out. There are also prepositional objects. The presence of the preposition "to"/al doesn't automatically make its object an indirect object. Intransitive verbs such as plaĉi and ŝajni that use al have prepositional objects, not indirect objects.

3. The presence of a preposition as part of a phrasal verb entails that that the noun that follows is in the prepositional case, not the accusative. English and Esperanto don't have a special prepositional case, but some languages do.

4. It's just not the case that the transitivity of a verb is inherent in the concept of the verb and therefore the same across languages. This is the thing I was wrong about. Whether a verb is or is not transitive is an arbitrary convention. The thing that made me realize this is the English verb "listen", which is listed in the dictionary as intransitive. Aŭskulti is transitive. There's no conceptual reason for this; it's just the way it turned out. Similarly, the English verb "to please" is normally transitive. "The wine pleases me." Esperanto's plaĉi is intransitive. There is no difference in meaning; it's just that Esperanto handles this as a phrasal verb. English does too, sometimes, but the basic definition has it as transitive.

5. Another example of a transitive verb that becomes intransitive in a compound is doni in voĉdoni. Of course, that's not a great example, because it's a highly idiomatic compound anyway.

6. When a transitive verb is used without a direct object, it's still transitive. Manĝi is still transitive when we say Mi manĝis antaŭ la prelego. But in such cases the transitivity doesn't matter.

7. Unfortunately, this means that there's no way for the Esperanto speaker to know that vespermanĝi, when not used alone, is a phrasal verb requiring a preposition. This must be learned separately; it can't be inferred from the meaning of its components. It's unfortunate because one of the principle advantages of compounds is to reduce the need to do that.

8. Fortunately, there don't appear to be many such words in Esperanto.

T0dd:I think the discussion is here because it was started here by a non-Esperanto speaker, razlem.

Oh sure, pin it on me

Just kidding. But look at the interesting discussion that unfolded (and who said Esperanto wasn't difficult).

razlem:Just kidding. But look at the interesting discussion that unfolded (and who said Esperanto wasn't difficult).

Anything becomes difficult and complicated if you analyze it down to a small enough level of detail.

Something that seems like a simple fact, such as "the sky is blue", can become difficult on analysis.

The sky isn't really blue, it only looks blue due to the way light refracts due to particles in the air. Or the sky isn't blue every day. Or the sky is blue only at some times every day. A simple statement of what seems like fact can degenerate into an endless debate.

It doesn't mean Esperanto isn't easy. Esperanto is still easy compared to most languages (though perhaps not objectively easy, insofar as learning ANY language takes time and effort). And this debate would have been resolved very quickly if the participants had simply concluded "Most people treat vespermanĝi as intransitive, therefore it is intransitive". Instead, the participants chose to take it into the minutia, which makes everything complicated.

Razlem, the idea that Esperanto is simple to learn has enough truth in it to be a reasonable thing to say. There are many instances of leaners reaching a good level in Esperanto which it would take a great deal of effort to achieve in a national language.

However, the assertion really needs some qualification. To reach an advanced level, sufficient say for someone to produce a good translation of a literary work, quite a bit of effort has to be put in.

You really need to know quite a bit about usage, and the nuances of lexical items. But I don't see how it could be otherwise and any alternative structure for an international language would encounter the same issue.

Should you decide to learn the language you may experience the enchantment that comes from its flexibility and nuanced expression, as many others have before you.

Todd, the notion that some concepts are inherently transitive has a lot of worth even if there may be doubt in certain specific cases.

In the case of 'aŭskulti', Esperanto puts it in the same class as other sensory verbs, vidi, flari, aŭdi, senti. So you could argue that English is odd in requiring a preposition for 'to listen'.

For ease of learning it is not irrelevant what other European languages do. If in most of them the form cognate with plaĉi requires a preposition, then again you could take the position that English is the odd man out in not requiring one for 'to please'.

sudanglo:Seems to me that the English forum should be for questions from beginners whose Esperanto isn't sufficient to allow them to compose their question in Esperanto - or about questions specific to English.

Forums at lernu are defined by language. Anyone can post to the English forum so long as the topic basically pertains to Esperanto, and the message is posted in English.

It is useful to have some experienced readers of the English forum in order to provide help and guidance to he newbies.

Yes, it would be nice to have such in-depth discussions in the Esperanto forums. Certainly many people discuss linguistics in Esperanto. If anyone here would like to complain that these topics are discussed in detail here and not in the Esperanto forums, I suggest that you open a new thread in an Esperanto forum and start up the discussion. It's not really right to complain about something being a certain way, and then perpetuate it yourself by participating.

This must be learned separately; it can't be inferred from the meaning of its components.

I not sure I agree Todd.

The reason for most people using 'matenmanĝi' intransitively is the thinginess of matenmanĝo.

It is wrong to see Esperanto's wordbuilding system as anything more than 'simpla kunmetado'.

The meaning of any compound (and here Razlem a root plus a gramatika finaĵo is also a kunmetaĵo) is down to human intuition based on a knowledge of the world - not some complicated derivational rules.

Why does matenmanĝo mean breakfast - because that's the obvious application of the word. Again why does matenmanĝi mean to have breakfast, because that's the obvious meaning.