Повідомлення: 386
Мова: English
T0dd (Переглянути профіль) 11 березня 2011 р. 19:26:31
razlem:This isn't an irregularity. It's just a matter of the way words are defined in Esperanto. If you look up "boil" in the Merriam Webster dictionary, for example, you'll see that it's first defined as a transitive verb, then as a transitive one. Neither definition has priority; they are just alternate forms. There are a lot of English verbs like that. To learn them, you must learn both forms, and you must learn which ones don't have dual forms, such as "die", and so on.erinja:Ultimately, as someone already mentioned, if you memorize the Esperanto meaning of a verb, the transitivity is obvious.Ah, the old irregularity tactic- "You just have to memorize it."
In Esperanto, each verb has a single primary definition, in which it is classified as transitive or intransitive. So the Esperanto definition of boli is very similar to the intransitive English one. And that's it. It's not an irregularity. If the verb is intransitive, and a transitive form is needed, you form it with the -IG- ending. That's regular. In English, if you need a transitive form, you either use the verb as it is, or use a separate verb for the purpose, or use a special ending, but you have to know what goes with what.
You can "blacken" your steak, and you can "brown" meat in the oven, and you can "redden" in the sun, but you can't "orangen" or "orange" or "greenen", ever. That's irregular.
qwertz (Переглянути профіль) 11 березня 2011 р. 20:16:11
darkweasel:Yes, that's right. According to Duden no "tuen" excists. But in spoken Hochdeutsch/Piefkinesisch "tuen" is used casually. I assume the "e" is used to accentuate the "n" or "tu|en Sie..." which could be nearly non-noticable by hearing without the "e". Why then making so much efforts to make "tuen" understood? Because someone could add the command/imperative fine-tunes to a plea (eine Bitte). In Bavarian dialect and workplace situation they often use "Magst du mal XYZ erledigen"(Do you like to complete task XYZ?) which should be understand like an somewhat sarcastic wrapped job instruction and not like a plea. By myself I don't use "tun/tust" very often. In my opinion "tun" is a unnecessary and non-comfy term and sounds silly. If there is a need to make instructions then it should make straigth ahead and not with some sarcastic "tun/tust du/tuen Sie" etc. fine tunes.ceigered:I'm using the German "tuen" (right verb?)This verb does not exist in German. Do you mean tun (= "to do")?
Ehm, okay, anyway, sarcastic talking can be a lot of fun.
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 11 березня 2011 р. 20:18:50
But what is the method of deciding whether it can be transitive or intransitive? By looking at their European counterparts? Even if you can change transitive to intransitive or vice versa, the transitivity of the root seems to be chosen arbitrarily.
I think this is one of those cases where context can fill in the gaps. If you make every verb ambitransitive, I don't think you would have a problem (of course this would require changing the verb system).
T0dd (Переглянути профіль) 11 березня 2011 р. 20:28:15
razlem:"In Esperanto, each verb has a single primary definition, in which it is classified as transitive or intransitive."I don't disagree, although as I pointed out above, ambitransitivity (nice word) makes the -N system even more valuable. Of course, I haven't thought the whole thing through, nor do I plan to do so, since Esperanto is what it is. But yes, I suspect Esperanto would be a tad easier if it had been done this way. In practice, learning transitivity is a pretty minor challenge, in my view.
But what is the method of deciding whether it can be transitive or intransitive? By looking at their European counterparts? Even if you can change transitive to intransitive or vice versa, the transitivity of the root seems to be chosen arbitrarily.
I think this is one of those cases where context can fill in the gaps. If you make every verb ambitransitive, I don't think you would have a problem (of course this would require changing the verb system).
erinja (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 00:00:16
razlem:No, not at all. Unless you consider it 'irregular' to have to know the meaning of a word before you use it. Just as the transitivity of "dormi" is obvious when you know the meaning of the word, the transitivity of "boli" is obvious when you know the meaning.erinja:Ultimately, as someone already mentioned, if you memorize the Esperanto meaning of a verb, the transitivity is obvious.Ah, the old irregularity tactic- "You just have to memorize it."
Translating those words into another language may give you a false idea of the transitivity, because of preconceived notions from your native language. This is not an 'irregularity' any more than false friends are irregularities. It's not Esperanto's fault if your language has a word that looks similar but with a different meaning.
RiotNrrd (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 02:08:01
sudanglo:Tell me what 'glabri' means Riot and I'll tell you whether it would be reasonable to follow it with a direct object and make a passive.Its meaning in English is practically identical to its meaning in Esperanto, which we have already discussed.
Perhaps some usage examples in English will help illustrate the issue.
I glabried.
I glabried the doohickey.
In English there is no question about GLABRY's[1] transitivity, whether we know what it means or not. A word that correctly fits into the above pattern in English[2] may be either transitive or intransitive in Esperanto, and there's no predicting which will be the case. At least, no way that I know of; if I'm just missing some key pattern, please let me know.
-------------
[1] It should be clear to all that GLABRY is not related to the similar-sounding word GLABROUS. They have quite different origins (in that one of them is made up).
[2] I understand that in English it COULD be the case that only "I glabried" is valid, according to the verbs meaning. In that case, it's very likely the Esperanto translation would be intransitive as well. So I'm really only whining about the case in the main post, above, where both sentences are valid. In that particular case, there is no way to predict how Esperanto will handle the translations transitivity. You would simply have to memorize it.
RiotNrrd (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 02:44:32
erinja:Unless you consider it 'irregular' to have to know the meaning of a word before you use it.For it to be irregular, there would have to be a rule that it is an exception to. But there is no rule.
It's certainly valid to say that the meaning of every verb includes its transitivity. But that is just reframing the issue in a way that makes it sound simple, without actually making it simpler. It doesn't change the fact that you still have to split verbs into two categories: the ones that follow the form "X verb Y" and the ones that follow only "X verb".
Just memorizing which-is-which is, therefore, the only answer. It's just not a very satisfying one.
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 10:42:03
Define glabri!
RiotNrrd (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 18:22:44
sudanglo:I beg your pardon Riot, but you have not responded to my challenge.I think it's pretty clear that GLABRI (and its English equivalent GLABRY) are stand-ins for verbs that can be used both transitively and intransitively in English. They are variables used for the purpose of illustration. That is how they are defined.
Define glabri!
Insisting that I provide an actual definition requires me to define a verb that doesn't already exist in Esperanto (or English, for that matter). I'm not that creative at the moment. The actual definition is irrelevant, in any case, as I'm talking about patterns, not individual instances.
My observation is simply that given such an English verb, it is not possible to tell how Esperanto will handle it. Maybe the root will be transitive, and use -iĝ for intransitivity, or maybe the root will be intransitive and use -ig for transitivity. There is no discernible pattern, and thus it seems arbitrary.
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 12 березня 2011 р. 18:24:49
erinja:Unless you consider it 'irregular' to have to know the meaning of a word before you use it.I consider it irregular when verbs are split into three categories with no formal rule or marker of how they're used.