Beiträge: 29
Sprache: English
RiotNrrd (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 02:06:41
I see ek- as starting a process. Starting to sit (to me, at least) involves just bending the knees and heading for the chair. It doesn't imply even reaching the chair.
So I wouldn't say it's a "temporary" thing. I see it as a "starting" thing, independent of whether or not it gets finished.
I mean, if you're standing there, and you decide to sit down, the ek- part STARTS with your standing and initial movement, and ENDS with your being at rest in the chair. So you can start to sit down, realize that the chair is covered in wet paint, and decide to sit somewhere else before your rear end ever touches anything.
So I wouldn't say it's a "temporary" thing. I see it as a "starting" thing, independent of whether or not it gets finished.
I mean, if you're standing there, and you decide to sit down, the ek- part STARTS with your standing and initial movement, and ENDS with your being at rest in the chair. So you can start to sit down, realize that the chair is covered in wet paint, and decide to sit somewhere else before your rear end ever touches anything.
Genjix (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 02:18:50
how to distinguish between ek means momentary/suddenly and when it means beginning?
e.g eklumi = flash light
eklegi = begin reading
i have no idea how to distinguish between those usages besides just learning when ek means a sudden action
e.g eklumi = flash light
eklegi = begin reading
i have no idea how to distinguish between those usages besides just learning when ek means a sudden action
RiotNrrd (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 06:55:27
Well... my advice, first, is: don't take my advice as the final word. 
The word sit, I think, can be taken two ways. There is the state of sitting, in which your rear is already firmly planted, but there is also the sense of moving into that position from a different position.
I think there are several actions/states covered by ek-, -iĝi, and the plain verb, and they overlap somewhat. I think that eksidi indicates the initial movement, but doesn't say whether you actually completed the action (but doesn't indicate that you didn't, either; eksidi would also cover the time just after you sit down). Sidiĝi implies that the action actually is completed and you end up in a sitting position; you have definitely become seated. Sidi is the entire action - starting, becoming, and doing.
But this is MY take on it. Others can (and probably do) interpret it differently. My interpretation does draw a distinction between eksidi and sidiĝi where others may not see one, but I see it as a useful distinction.
The word sit, I think, can be taken two ways. There is the state of sitting, in which your rear is already firmly planted, but there is also the sense of moving into that position from a different position.
I think there are several actions/states covered by ek-, -iĝi, and the plain verb, and they overlap somewhat. I think that eksidi indicates the initial movement, but doesn't say whether you actually completed the action (but doesn't indicate that you didn't, either; eksidi would also cover the time just after you sit down). Sidiĝi implies that the action actually is completed and you end up in a sitting position; you have definitely become seated. Sidi is the entire action - starting, becoming, and doing.
But this is MY take on it. Others can (and probably do) interpret it differently. My interpretation does draw a distinction between eksidi and sidiĝi where others may not see one, but I see it as a useful distinction.
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 08:01:10
Basically, in a more concise form:
eksidi = begin to sit. Whether the action of beginning to sit is completed or not, we don't know. To begin sitting down
sidiĝi = change to a sitting state from a non-sitting state. To sit down
(because "ek" is about the very start of the action, "eksidi" and "eksidiĝi" can mean the same thing. Ek means that a change of state is beginning. Iĝi means the state is changing. The verb describes the state).
Examples:
"Mi eksidis sed antaŭ ol mia pugo tuŝis la seĝo, simio ĵetis bananon tien, kaj la seĝo malpuriĝis. Do, mi haltis."
I began to sit but before my bottom touched the seat a monkey threw a banana to that location and the seat became dirty. So, I stopped (the movement).
"Dum mi sidiĝis, simio ĵetis bananon al la seĝo kaj ĉar mi jam sidis sur ĝi la banano malpurigis mian vizaĝon."
While I was sitting down, a monkey throw a banana to the seat and because I was already sitting upon it the banana dirtied my face.
More experienced Esperantists, feel free to let me know if I've slipped up there. If the formatting is a bit garrish (the green looks nice on my computer at least), I apologise.
eksidi = begin to sit. Whether the action of beginning to sit is completed or not, we don't know. To begin sitting down
sidiĝi = change to a sitting state from a non-sitting state. To sit down
(because "ek" is about the very start of the action, "eksidi" and "eksidiĝi" can mean the same thing. Ek means that a change of state is beginning. Iĝi means the state is changing. The verb describes the state).
Examples:
"Mi eksidis sed antaŭ ol mia pugo tuŝis la seĝo, simio ĵetis bananon tien, kaj la seĝo malpuriĝis. Do, mi haltis."
I began to sit but before my bottom touched the seat a monkey threw a banana to that location and the seat became dirty. So, I stopped (the movement).
"Dum mi sidiĝis, simio ĵetis bananon al la seĝo kaj ĉar mi jam sidis sur ĝi la banano malpurigis mian vizaĝon."
While I was sitting down, a monkey throw a banana to the seat and because I was already sitting upon it the banana dirtied my face.
More experienced Esperantists, feel free to let me know if I've slipped up there. If the formatting is a bit garrish (the green looks nice on my computer at least), I apologise.
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 08:12:07
Genjix:how to distinguish between ek means momentary/suddenly and when it means beginning?Ek just means the action's beginning, starting, comencing, that the gun at the start of the race has been fired.
e.g eklumi = flash light
eklegi = begin reading
i have no idea how to distinguish between those usages besides just learning when ek means a sudden action
For example:
-"lumi" = to shine, be glowing (not like "ardi").
- "lumigi" = to light in the sense of being the cause of something glowing or shining. E.g. "la piloj en mia poŝlampo lumigas la ampolo"
- "eklumigi" = to light, in the sense of "I got a match and lit a flame (but I didn't support it past that)". To begin the lighting. Most things you "eklumigi" would be able to support their own glowing by themselves, e.g. a bomb fuse, a candle, a fire.
Now a bonus question - does the sun "lumigi" or "eklumigi" a bush fire (if it is indeed the cause, we'll ignore idiots dropping cigarettes on dry grass)?
. 
sudanglo (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 09:29:10
NPIV rather neatly explains the meaning of 'ek', defining it as a prefix with the meaning that something has begun suddenly at a precise moment, and then NPIV goes on to distinguish uses 1. with a possible continuation or 2. without further continuation.
If someone 'ekdormas' the duration of the nap is indeterminate.
On the other hand if someone 'eksaltas', you wouldn't expect them to carry on jumping for several hours.
So as with all kunmetaĵoj in Esperanto, the meaning of the compound is interpreted in context and in the light of the realities of the world.
'Ek' does not mean that the action failed to complete. If someone 'eksidas' then at some point it must be true that 'li sidas'
If someone 'ekdormas' the duration of the nap is indeterminate.
On the other hand if someone 'eksaltas', you wouldn't expect them to carry on jumping for several hours.
So as with all kunmetaĵoj in Esperanto, the meaning of the compound is interpreted in context and in the light of the realities of the world.
'Ek' does not mean that the action failed to complete. If someone 'eksidas' then at some point it must be true that 'li sidas'
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 11:03:15
sudanglo:'Ek' does not mean that the action failed to complete. If someone 'eksidas' then at some point it must be true that 'li sidas'Well, it simply doesn't define that to my understanding. The action may have failed or mightn't have. It's just the beginning of the action really, and in most cases one can assume that without extra details the action went along just nicely.
niko-tina:I wouldn't be too eager to say that - they may be interchangeable in some circumstances but there's definitely differences in the meaning. To a learner I'd say "feel free to use them as you like but one must be aware of the difference".One can also convey the notion of interruption with iĝ: “Sidiĝante Marko, Petro haltigis lin”.If you have to clarify it with both of them... be free to use them as you want!
For instance, "Li sidiĝis sed iu haltigis lin" sounds sorta strange. "He changed to a state of sitting, but was stopped" - wait, but he's already changed to a state of sitting, how can he be stopped? Was he sitting down in a vehicle but the vehicle was stopped? I assume most can understand by context quite easily, but there may be cases where precision and knowing the actual meaning of what one is saying may be quite important.
"Sidiĝante, li haltis" though, that makes sense because we're saying "while half way through changing states from standing to sitting, he stopped".
Anyway, since this is the English forum, I'd compare "He went to sit but was stopped" (ek) with "He sat down but was stopped". The latter makes no sense if we're saying the sitting down was stopped because it's been completed.
But "He went to sit, and started reading a newspaper" vs. "He sat down and started reading a newspaper", well, that's definitely interchangeable, unless the author REALLY wanted to stress the action of beginning to sit down
horsto (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 11:31:46
RiotNrrd:I think it's not really a useful distinction if others don't understand it.
But this is MY take on it. Others can (and probably do) interpret it differently. My interpretation does draw a distinction between eksidi and sidiĝi where others may not see one, but I see it as a useful distinction.
In my opinion sidi doesn't mean to sit down, it means to be sitting and therefore eksidi doesn't mean to start moving in order to sit down, but it means that your sitting just started.
If you want to express that the action of sitting down was interrupted, which is hardly ever needed, then I would express that explicitly, f.e.:
He was just going to sit down (is that correct?) when he heard ...
Sidonte li aŭdis ...
Or perhaps you could think about using the form sidigi sin, which I think better expresses the action of sitting down.
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 22. Januar 2011 15:25:26
horsto:He was just going to sit down (is that correct?) when he heard ...Sidonte li aŭdis merely implies that he was at any point in the future going to sit down though.
Sidonte li aŭdis ...
Or perhaps you could think about using the form sidigi sin, which I think better expresses the action of sitting down.
Nonetheless, to the "end user" none of these things should really matter as you say. But the subconscious nuances they can give a text might be useful to an author. A parallel example in English could be "As he was going to sit down" vs "He was going to sit down" - they both technically could mean the same thing but the latter gives the impression that the action wasn't really beginning.
Such small, almost insignificant and unuseful cues, when put together by a good author, can help illustrate with high detail a scene or event to the point where one can almost imagine it like a movie (without having blatant overuse of adjectives and adverbs like I remember doing in creative writing all through school
).Anyway, it all depends. I doubt anyone here's gonna be writing exciting thriller novels about people sitting, sitting down, sitting others down and starting to sit down and not completing the action