Til innholdet

Igxi and intransitive verbs

fra Miland,2011 1 18

Meldinger: 29

Språk: English

ceigered (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 14:07:56

niko-tina:because one has to know by heart which of them are transitive and which are not.
I think that's a bit of an overreaction. You know whether they're transitive or intransitive by their meaning. "Sidi" means "to places one's pugo on a seĝo".

You can't get any more precise than that unless you ALWAYS have verbs as being active-transitive or something like that as a default, and that isn't natural nor useful at all for humans or even dolphins (as far as their physical signalling goes), since both communication schemes tend to keep important, useful or highly used ideas with short, unique "words".

Niko-tina:I like to imagine what it would have been like if every verb was intransitive from the beginning
Theoretically every verb is intransitive, and only becomes transitive when given an accusative object to accompany it. E.g. "Mi lernas." "I am learning".

It's possible I guess that things could have been "Mi lernas" = "I am being learnt", "Mi lernigas" = I am learning, "Mi lernigas ion" = "I am learning something, but it's not quite so practical with this example.

Niko-tina:Personally, I don’t see what use could have that emphasis tommjames clarifies on the difference between eksidi and sidiĝi. The state of being sitting implies not being in another state. When you start sitting, you stop being in another incompatible state (standing, laying down). That’s why eksidi is just as useful as sidiĝi to communicate that the state has changed.
I only skimread his post, but my understanding:
Eksidi = Begin to sit, not necessarily implying completion.
(e.g. he began to sit but was interrupted by something - "Li eksidis sed io interrompis lin"

Sidiĝi = Become one sitting(?), basically the entire beginning of the action, e.g. from the moment you start to sit, to the moment you successfully plant your bottom on the chair. Everything else is "sidi".

That's how I see it at least, since I see "iĝi" as "becoming a state", thus "sidiĝi" to me reads more like "sidantiĝi", where as "eksidi" reads more like "komenci sidi", with emphasis on the "komenci".

One thing I never quite understood is why "ek-" is at the start and not the backside of a verb like "iĝi" and "igi", since you're not saying (with eksidi) "to beginning-sit" but more "to sit-begin".... "sideki" sounds interesting nonetheless rido.gif. I guess the explanation could be that "ek" has a very ambiguous meaning, or simply that Zamenhoff didn't want to overload the backside of a radical with heaps of suffixes! ridulo.gif

sudanglo (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 14:27:25

Niko, whether a verb is transitive or intransitive does rather depend on the meaning - what that verb labels in the real world. To force all verbs into one grammatical category would be unnatural.

'Sidi' is naturally intransitive (doesn't take an object), 'ripari' is naturally transitive (can and often does takes an object).

Since Esperanto works by kunmetado rather than rules of derivation, 'ig' and 'iĝ' can be added to any verb provided it makes a useful word - recognizably applies to something in the real world - just as words like bushaltejo or flughaveno are created.

So we have esti, estiĝi and estigi and all three are useful. Similarly we have ripari, ripariĝi and riparigi.

In the case of 'bonvolu sidiĝi' the meaning is please be seated, take a seat. 'Bonvolu eksidi' doesn't seem quite so natural as a polite invitation since it emphasizes the transition rather than the end state, though not impossible.

On the other hand you might well say 'Li tuj eksidis antaŭ la komputilo kaj komencis furioze verki retmesaĝon'.

English learners have to learn the difference between boli and boligi since both ideas are subsumed under a single word in English, but then they also have to learn the difference between provi, klopodi and peni which are all covered by the single word 'try' in English

tommjames (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 14:54:45

niko-tina:The introduction of the two sufixes ig and iĝ make it difficult to learn the verb lists, because one has to know by heart which of them are transitive and which are not.
I used to feel similarly, but I've since found that if you learn the actual meaning of a verb then there is rarely any difficulty, as a verb's ability to accept an object is no more than a consequence of its meaning. If any difficulty exists then it can only really be in the fact that you cannot assume a verb to have the same possibility (or impossibility) to accept an object as the "equivalent" verb in your own language. But this really isn't anything we should be surprised about. That you cannot always assume equivalence with the function of your native tongue is the perennial experience of learners of any second language. I remain skeptical that verb transitivity should somehow be considered an exception to this, especially in view of how cross language cognates can vary in meaning and function.

NikoTina:That’s why eksidi is just as useful as sidiĝi to communicate that the state has changed.
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that eksidi is less useful for that. As I said they both contain the same core message. If you start sitting you come into a sitting state. If you come into a sitting state then you have started sitting. But my point was just about nuance and emphasis rather than usefulness in conveying a specific meaning.
Personally I see -iĝ as ever so slightly more suggestive of the idea of state change than ek-, and thus capable of conveying this small (but IMO not entirely trivial) nuance.

RiotNrrd (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 16:20:00

I see quite a substantial difference between eksidi and sidiĝi.

You can start to sit, but never finish doing so. Whereas once you've become seated, you're there.

Li eksidis, sed tiam rimarkis la malsekan farbon. Tial, li sidiĝis en alia seĝo.

UUano (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 17:00:36

How would one translate "to seat", as in The hostess needed to seat a party of 5, but only had a table for 2 available."

Would that be "sidigi"?

If so...what verb would one use to express that "the party was seated"? Would that be an appropriate use for "sidiĝi", distinguished from "eksidi"?

Not sure this adds to the debate...but it's the only question I could think of that might help clarify in my mind the use of "ek-", which for me is less obvious in many instances than the use of "-iĝi" is.

Afterthought: In French, passive formations are avoided as much as possible, and so "to be seated" would likely be expressed using the pronoun on. Is Esperanto similar in this fashion, preferring active constructions rather than passive? Would one translate "we were seated" as oni sidigis nin rather than ni sidiĝis?

After-afterthought: I just realized that "ni sidiĝis" isn't really a passive formation, even if the meaning is somewhat passive. I think I ought to stop babbling now and see what you all have to say.

sal.gif

darkweasel (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 17:38:45

necesi = esti bezonata
necesigi = to make necessary

Miland (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 18:00:54

UUano:How would one translate "to seat", as in The hostess needed to seat a party of 5, but only had a table for 2 available."
Would that be "sidigi"?
If so...what verb would one use to express that "the party was seated"? Would that be an appropriate use for "sidiĝi", distinguished from "eksidi"?
There would be little difference if any, though eksidi might be appropriate if it happened suddenly.

Chainy (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 21:30:51

RiotNrrd:I see quite a substantial difference between eksidi and sidiĝi.

You can start to sit, but never finish doing so. Whereas once you've become seated, you're there.

Li eksidis, sed tiam rimarkis la malsekan farbon. Tial, li sidiĝis en alia seĝo.
So, in the above example, you seem to be using 'eksidis' for a more temporary state - he sat down for a second or two, then noticed stickiness of the wet paint under his bottom and so moved to another seat?

And then you use 'sidiĝis' in the sense that he sat down and remained seated, no unpleasant surprises under his bottom.

It's an interesting distinction that you make, but I think I need some time to think about it! ridulo.gif

Mustelvulpo (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 22:11:28

It's clear from these posts that there often is not a great deal of differnce, if any, between using the ek- prefix or the -iĝ suffix with an intransitive verb but don't you think that a good language should have more than one way to express the same idea? Sometimes one or the other might be more in line with the mood of whatever you're saying or writing. It's good to have options!

malgxoj (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 21 22:51:24

Chainy:So, in the above example, you seem to be using 'eksidis' for a more temporary state - he sat down for a second or two, then noticed stickiness of the wet paint under his bottom and so moved to another seat?

And then you use 'sidiĝis' in the sense that he sat down and remained seated, no unpleasant surprises under his bottom.

It's an interesting distinction that you make, but I think I need some time to think about it! ridulo.gif
"La knabo eksidis, kiam knabino subite prenis la segxon for..."

"The boy went to sit, when a girl suddenly took his chair away..."

Excusing my shaky, novice's grasp of the language, is the point that 'eksidis' is an appropriate choice here, where 'sidigxis' or 'sidis' would not be?

Tibake til toppen