T0dd:

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.

For me the intransitivity of vespermanĝi is easily explained in that it suggests participation in an event, which also explains the intransitive classifications of matenmanĝi, tagmanĝi, lunĉi, dine, breakfast etc.

Yes, when we dine something is getting eaten. But when we sit something is always getting directly affected: the chair, sofa, floor or whatever it is we're sitting on. That doesn't mean we have to say that sidi is transitive, because sitting has the idea of being in a certain state, which isn't something that lends itself well to accepting a direct object. Same deal with "plaĉi", which indicates an inherent quality.

T0dd:I suspect that we're saying that vespermanĝi is intransitive simply because it may often used without mentioning the direct object.

I think that's understating it a bit. In the vast majority of cases vespermanĝi is used in a way that doesn't seem to care about any object, and you cannot say the same for manĝi. That's not down to some arbitrary decree by vortaristoj; it naturally results from the sense of the verb as perceived by the community of speakers.

T0dd:Even per is questionable here, since we could also have Ni vespermanĝis per pladoj el papero.

Does it really matter? Nobody is going to think we're saying here that we ate paper plates for dinner.

I'm not usually one for appeals to authority but in this case I must say I agree that the classification in PIV should pretty much seal the matter. If you don't agree with the akademianoj in their judgement that vespermanĝi is best described as intransitive then you're quite free to question that judgement in the Konsultejo.

tommjames:Nobody is going to think we're saying here that we ate paper plates for dinner.

I dunno, when I get bored waiting for food at a family barbeque etc, chewing on the paper crockery isn't exactly a novelty

tommjames:For me the intransitivity of vespermanĝi is easily explained in that it suggests participation in an event, which also explains the intransitive classifications of matenmanĝi, tagmanĝi, lunĉi, dine, breakfast etc.

I think this falls into the "dubious metaphysics" category. An event is just something happening. Most, if not all, verbs refer to events, many of which we participate in. This doesn't give any special status to certain verbs. Using matenmanĝi with a direct object certainly doesn't in any way subtract from its "eventness".

Yes, when we dine something is getting eaten. But when we sit something is always getting directly affected: the chair, sofa, floor or whatever it is we're sitting on. That doesn't mean we have to say that sidi is transitive, because sitting has the idea of being in a certain state, which isn't something that lends itself well to accepting a direct object. Same deal with "plaĉi", which indicates an inherent quality.

Indeed. I've already made the point that to a great extent, whether or not we treat a verb as transitive or intransitive is often just a matter of convention. "Being in a state" is just as vague as "participating in an event". In the case of sidi, however, it's useful to use it intransitively with a preposition, because we not only sit on things, we also sit under, beside, etc. them.

In the vast majority of cases vespermanĝi is used in a way that doesn't seem to care about any object, and you cannot say the same for manĝi.

I'm not so sure. Did you eat yet? I ate before the meeting. I never eat before a workout. Etc, etc. All of these objectless usages are at home in Esperanto. The same goes for other transitive verbs, such as kanti.

Incidentally, I'd say that the intransitivity of plaĉi is equally dubious, since it's all about causing an effect in someone. Nothing is pleasing unless it pleases someone.

That's not down to some arbitrary decree by vortaristoj; it naturally results from the sense of the verb as perceived by the community of speakers.

I understand that, but in cases such as these, I believe the arbitrariness of the decree is the product of the arbitrariness of what the speech community has settled on.

In the case of plaĉi I don't protest, though, because it's a root verb, and in Esperanto almost all root verbs are defined transitive or intransitive. Tagmanĝi, however, is a noun+verb compound in which the transitivity of the root verb is changed--a unique case, as far as I can tell. This change is what creates what I consider a pointless complication.

tommjames:
I'm not usually one for appeals to authority but in this case I must say I agree that the classification in PIV should pretty much seal the matter. If you don't agree with the akademianoj in their judgement that vespermanĝi is best described as intransitive then you're quite free to question that judgement in the Konsultejo.

I'm not disputing the authority of NPIV, but I am disputing whether they, in this case, discharged that authority correctly.

If nothing else, this debate has been useful to me for learning more about Esperanto compounds. In particular, noun+verb compounds follow a certain pattern, as I described in the Esperanto thread. They either use the noun adverbially, as in fingromontri, or as an object, as in fiŝkapti or partopreni. In both cases, the transitivity of the root verb is preserved, but in the second case it's directed back at the noun root. Matenmanĝi falls into the first category, however, where the noun is adverbial. I wasn't even aware of this pattern previously, but now that I am aware of it, I see that changing the transitivity of manĝi in matenmanĝi etc. breaks it.

I think that manĝi as it is used in practice can have two meanings: one is the obvious one, applied to specific, direct objects manĝaĵoj, and this main use results in it being classified as transitive in dictionaries. The other could be participation in the occasion, without reference to a specific object, and therefore would be intransitive. Matenmanĝi or vespemanĝi would be a part of this second usage. By the same token manĝo can refer to an act of eating something specific as well as an occasion not referring to a specific eatable. Thus we have specific acts manĝoj within the occasion manĝo.

Thus if the adverbial addition of a root to the front of a verb describes the way an action is carried out, transitivity stays intact, but if the adverbial addition describes the target or object of the action, transitivity (often) goes intransitive?

Thus:
Mi matenmanĝas = Mi manĝas la matena(j)n manĝaĵo(j)n.

Mi matenmanĝas maizflokojn = Ĉi-matene mi manĝas maizflakojn.

While it all looks very self explanatory when written out in Esperanto, the explanations behind it are somewhat comforting .

ceigered:Thus if the adverbial addition of a root to the front of a verb describes the way an action is carried out, transitivity stays intact, but if the adverbial addition describes the target or object of the action, transitivity (often) goes intransitive?

In cases like fiŝkapti and partopreni, the noun root is not being used adverbially. Fiŝkapti does not mean fiŝe kapti, and partopreni doesn't mean parte preni. And voĉdoni doesn't mean voĉe doni. In these cases, the noun root is the actual direct object of the verb, but the whole verb is generally used intransitively.

But fingromontri means fingre montri, not montri fingron. And it retains the transitivity of montri. Matenmanĝi belongs to this category, rather than the other one.

T0dd:

ceigered:Thus if the adverbial addition of a root to the front of a verb describes the way an action is carried out, transitivity stays intact, but if the adverbial addition describes the target or object of the action, transitivity (often) goes intransitive?

In cases like fiŝkapti and partopreni, the noun root is not being used adverbially. Fiŝkapti does not mean fiŝe kapti, and partopreni doesn't mean parte preni. And voĉdoni doesn't mean voĉe doni. In these cases, the noun root is the actual direct object of the verb, but the whole verb is generally used intransitively.

But fingromontri means fingre montri, not montri fingron. And it retains the transitivity of montri. Matenmanĝi belongs to this category, rather than the other one.

Oh, Ok, that makes sense, I thought we were all saying that Matenmanĝi belongs with fiŝkapti!

That makes it simpler then since "Mi matenmanĝas" is merely an intransitive use of the normally transitive "Mi matenmanĝas (god-knows-what)"

T0dd:An event is just something happening.

Well that's a reductive definition of "event", but in any case it's the participation within the event to which I'm mainly alluding, not the event itself.

Most, if not all, verbs refer to events, many of which we participate in. This doesn't give any special status to certain verbs

I think it does. If I participate in a kongreso that's a fundamentally different notion of participation, than merely doing something like putting food into my mouth.

Indeed. I've already made the point that to a great extent, whether or not we treat a verb as transitive or intransitive is often just a matter of convention.

Well I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I think that, though I agree that in natlangs there are some verbs where the emergence of transitive/intransitive meaning doesn't appear to have followed any discernible logic and is essentially arbitrary. But I wouldn't accept that sidi or plaĉi count as those, for the respective reasons I gave.

I'm not so sure. Did you eat yet? I ate before the meeting. I never eat before a workout. Etc, etc. All of these objectless usages are at home in Esperanto.

Yes, but such intransitive usages of manĝi are not nearly as common as they are for vespermanĝi, where lack of an object is the norm. That in itself should tell you something about the sense of the verb.

Incidentally, I'd say that the intransitivity of plaĉi is equally dubious, since it's all about causing an effect in someone. Nothing is pleasing unless it pleases someone.

It's not "all about" causing an effect at all. Of course having a pleasing quality necessitates someone to have apprehended that quality. But this is irrelevant to the semantic role plaĉi actually plays in most contexts. Being red requires someone somewhere to have perceived redness but we don't consider ruĝi to be all about the effect the redness causes in some perceiver. We don't say "ruĝas min".

And yes, before you shake the category stick at me, I know plaĉ' is defined as a verb and ruĝ' is an adjective, but the fact remains the meaning of plaĉ' comes down to a quality, and therefore an "eca radiko". I suspect the verb classification just resulted from the fact that many more instances of verbal usage were present in the literature, back when they assigned these categories. In my view plaĉ' should have been defined as an adjective. That would seem to better fit the root's basic meaning, and surely it would have avoided all this quibbling that frequently arises regarding the possibility of a direct object when using that root as a verb.

I believe the arbitrariness of the decree is the product of the arbitrariness of what the speech community has settled on.

Fine, but the point is they have settled on it.

I'm not disputing the authority of NPIV, but I am disputing whether they, in this case, discharged that authority correctly.

Well you admitted that the community has settled on a meaning, so as I see it the job of PIV is simply to convey what it is they have settled on. I think they've done that correctly.

tommjames:[Concerning i]plaĉi[/i]Of course having a pleasing quality necessitates someone to have apprehended that quality. But this is irrelevant to the semantic role plaĉi actually plays in most contexts. Being red requires someone somewhere to have perceived redness but we don't consider ruĝi to be all about the effect the redness causes in some perceiver. We don't say "ruĝas min".

We don't say ruĝas min or even, usually, ruĝal al mi because red is considered an objective, perceiver-independent property (never mind what Berkeley and Locke thought). Plaĉa, however, is quite perceiver-dependent. For that reason, it's more important to construe plaĉi in terms of effects on someone.

I'm not disputing the authority of NPIV, but I am disputing whether they, in this case, discharged that authority correctly.

Well you admitted that the community has settled on a meaning, so as I see it the job of PIV is simply to convey what it is they have settled on. I think they've done that correctly.

Actually, no, I don't think this has much of anything to do with the meaning of tagmanĝi at all. I haven't admitted that point, i.e., that the verb is somehow inherently intransitive. So, I agree that the speech community has settled on something, and that something is a particular intransitive usage that, in my view, leaves the meaning untouched. The editors of NPIV have decided to make that usage normative, despite its deviation from the way relevantly similar compounds behave, and I think that decision was unwise.