Mesaĝoj: 61
Lingvo: English
Roberto12 (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 09:56:58
Chainy:But, how about using the verb 'teni'? According to ReVo, one of its meanings is "Zorgi, ke iu aŭ io restu en ia stato", which seems close to the idea of 'keep' as in the sentence above.Ni tenu la verdan flagon flirtanta!
Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 10:01:53
darkweasel:They are not unrelated, they're opposites. ig increases the valency, iĝ decreases it.tommjames:The two suffixes are not symmetrical in that regard.Personally, I don't even understand why they are always explained together. They have totally different and unrelated meanings ...
I think sudanglo is plain right saying that iĝ means "transition from one state to another" and additionally (with transtive verbs) intransitivity (ruli - ruliĝi).
I don't see any real complication here. It's just unusual for people who's languages don't distinguish between (in)transitive verbs.
(Puh, hope this is acceptable English).
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 10:19:38
Kirilo81:They are not unrelated, they're opposites. ig increases the valency, iĝ decreases it.Can you give some examples? I have no idea what you mean by 'valency'.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 10:44:07
Chainy:Valency (linguistics)Kirilo81:They are not unrelated, they're opposites. ig increases the valency, iĝ decreases it.Can you give some examples? I have no idea what you mean by 'valency'.
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 10:54:01
darkweasel:Yes, I was just wondering about what Kirill said about '-ig-' increasing valency and '-iĝ-' decreasing it. But I think I know what he meant now:
Valency (linguistics)
Ni komencis la kurson (= divalent, 'Ni' and 'la kurson')
La kurso komenciĝis (= monovalent, 'la kurso')
So, there you can see that '-iĝ-' reduced the number of 'arguments' in the sentence.
I had just never come across this before.
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 11:38:23
So we have grandiĝi, tagiĝi, aliĝi, enlitiĝi and so on.
Iĝ should definitely not be seen as just an operator for changing the transitivity of a verb.
Tom raised the point of whether komenci and fini might be special cases (also ĉesi?). It is true that the meaning of these verbs is bound up with state transition in a way that is not the case for many other verbs.
darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 12:24:47
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 12:42:39
I think valency and the meanings of ig/iĝ would be, as Darkweasel said, consequential rather than native.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 12:58:03
Kirilo:I think sudanglo is plain right saying that iĝ means "transition from one state to another" and additionally (with transtive verbs) intransitivity (ruli - ruliĝi). I don't see any real complication here.Nobody is questioning the meaning of -iĝ, and I think we're all well aware that a transitive verb with -iĝ becomes intransitive, though as others have quite correctly pointed out, this is not the purpose of the suffix. The question was whether some iĝ-transitives can have the active sense of "iĝi -anta", as opposed to the normal mediopassive meaning that such verbs overwhelmingly have in Esperanto. Sciiĝi, komenciĝi and finiĝi were cited as possibilities.
To be clear, I have nothing against these forms from the perspective of simple wordbuilding. The very principle which allows "manĝigi" to mean both "igi manĝi" and "igi manĝita" should in principle allow for the possibility of "ni komenciĝu" to mean "ni iĝu komencanta", or "let's get started" as it would be in English. But the point is that it doesn't, because Esperanto has never developed that parralel possibility for -iĝ. You can only point to dubious historical examples like sciiĝi, which people find confusing. Are there any others that ever became widely used at all? If so I'm not aware of them, and I certainly see no need to go adding to them, making arbitrary exceptions for some verbs which somebody decided were a "special case". Better to just teach the language as it is, I think.
Kirilo81 (Montri la profilon) 2011-aprilo-16 13:39:17
darkweasel:The valency change is a mere consequence of the meanings of these two suffixes. It is not their raison d'etre.First: For me, although I'm a professional linguist, that's not very important.
Anyhow, cases like ruliĝi, where there's no ingressive or fientive nuance, show that -iĝ at least with transitive (bivalent) verbs is grammaticalized as a valency decreaser.
With regard to the question which @tommjames just summarized: I couldn't agree more, one simply has to consider that the tradition doesn't allow an other interpretation of transitive verb + -iĝ than the one outlined above, so although X-igi = igi X-a = igi X-anta or igi X-ata is common, this is not the case with X-iĝi (to correct myself, should have read the thread more carefully).
Sporadic exceptions belong to the tradition, too.