36lima:Is there any definitive resource to identify the transitivity of an Esperanto word? I get that experienced speakers have a feel for this sort of thing, but it would seem like there should be a reference for transitivity of a word (or even specifying that it could be ambiguous).

Just curious. If the general response is "you'll just have to keep reading/speaking Esperanto and get a feel for it", I can live with that but don't want to overlook a resource with more specific information if there is one.

Thanks!
Kelly

Of course, there is PIV - Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto. The must-have for a serious esperanto speaker.

geo63:
Of course, there is PIV - Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto. The must-have for a serious esperanto speaker.

Thanks, I'll check it out!

Kelly

erinja:I would never say "Mi kunlaboras vin" and I would never say "Mi ĉeestas ĉe la festo"

I would always say "Mi kunlaboras kun vi" and "Mi ĉeestas la feston"

It depends on the preposition and it depends on the verb, in my opinion. Some verbs are very commonly combined with a certain preposition, such that the new word has a meaning that is agreed upon by pretty much everyone, and that combined word is assumed to have a certain transitivity, which is also agreed upon by most everyone.

See, this is what I find distressing about the E-o movement nowadays. When I first started learning, I was overjoyed to discover that there was none of this nonsense of "well, yes, it's grammatical and I know what you mean, but we just don't say it like that so, in effect, it's wrong" which you find in national languages. It's enough to make a mostly finvenkista boy drop the language in disgust with the words "we were SUPPOSED to be "better than" national languages!"
Of course, nobody is saying "that's wrong" with the verbiage I gave above, but to me, it's a very short and slippery slope from "It depends on the preposition and it depends on the verb, in my opinion." to "That's wrong, even if it maybe shouldn't be, winkwinknudgenuge." Too much more "opinion" like that and I'll probably just go back to concentrating on my Russian, Greek, and Romanian and smattering in the other Orthodox languages.

Esperanto is a language where we build words. The words that we build have meanings that depend on their context. Every language has tradeoffs; the fact that you don't have to learn so many vocabulary words is a plus, but the fact that some constructed words may have ambiguous meaning would be the minus associated with that plus.

In English, "to go", "to approach", "to accompany", "to enter", and "to exit" are totally separate words and I have to learn them separately - meaning, transitivity, everything. In Esperanto, "iri" is the basis of these words. ir/i, al/ir/i, kun/ir/i, en/ir/i, el/ir/i. With one verb and a set of prepositions, you have a whole new group of related vocabulary words.

In most cases I would say that the transitivity of the constructed word is the same as that of the base verb.

But you have to think about the object. What would be the object of "kunlabori"? would it be the person that you collaborated with, or would it be the project that you worked on, in collaboration with another person? In cases of doubt, I think most people would avoid using a direct object, and use a preposition instead. "Kunlabori kun Johano pri projekto" (To collaborate with John on a project), for example.

In other cases, the meaning seems intransitive, but it might look transitive when people use it, because they are taking advantage of the option to replace a preposition with -n.

eliri domon = eliri el domo

But I can't deny that Esperanto is more than just the 16 rules. There are many constructions that are technically correct, but that Esperanto speakers have decided, collectively, not to use. Sometimes it's a matter of style, it's just considered "bad style" for some reason. Sometimes something is technically correct but it is discouraged because it lends itself to misinterpretation, and we try to speak as clearly as possible.

I would never tell a student "Don't do that, just because we don't do that". At a maximum, I would say "You can do it but it's a rarely used construction so you risk being misunderstood", or "You can do it but usually we don't do it because another way to do it is clearer/more concise" or something to that effect.

But if you prefer to study other languages instead, there's nothing stopping you. Esperanto is far from perfect, and if you feel that it isn't useful to you, or that it's more trouble than it's worth, then feel free to spend your valuable free time with something that you enjoy more.

I reckon that as long as something abides by the basic rules of Esperanto, then it's perfectly fine to say it, even if certain trends have formed over the years.

Beginners might say things in slightly unusual but perfectly correct ways and I would just go along with that. As long as it remains perfectly understandable! And then the more people use Esperanto, they naturally start to pick up on the trends of usage.

erinja:

But I can't deny that Esperanto is more than just the 16 rules. There are many constructions that are technically correct, but that Esperanto speakers have decided, collectively, not to use. Sometimes it's a matter of style, it's just considered "bad style" for some reason. Sometimes something is technically correct but it is discouraged because it lends itself to misinterpretation, and we try to speak as clearly as possible.

I would never tell a student "Don't do that, just because we don't do that". At a maximum, I would say "You can do it but it's a rarely used construction so you risk being misunderstood", or "You can do it but usually we don't do it because another way to do it is clearer/more concise" or something to that effect.

I understand your point, but as I've said, it's a very short and slippery slope from "you risk being misunderstood/but this other way is more concise/bad style" to "that's wrong".
and collectively? so the squeaky wheel gets the grease (of prestige)? I never did like that method of decision making. If it's not against grammar and makes sense, it's fair game.

It's not that it isn't fair game, because it is. But sometimes a beginner is not aware that by choosing a certain form that is never really used, the meaning of what they say may be unclear to other Esperanto speakers. It isn't fair simply to ignore it and say nothing to the beginner.

Some beginners, like you, may feel that "if it doesn't contradict the rules, it's fair game". Some beginners might feel that, "Hey, why didn't you ever TELL me that no one ever says it this way? I thought you were the teacher!"

The only fair thing to do is to leave the decision up to the beginner. You let the beginner know that this is a thing that most people don't really do, but that it is still technically correct. You give the beginner the reason why it isn't normally done, because in almost every case there is a logical reason, even if you don't happen to agree with the logic. And then you let the beginner make his or her own decision about whether to use it or not.

It's a way to treat other people with respect, by giving them all of the information they need to make an informed decision based on their own preferences.

erinja:Some beginners, like you, may feel that "if it doesn't contradict the rules, it's fair game". Some beginners might feel that, "Hey, why didn't you ever TELL me that no one ever says it this way? I thought you were the teacher!"

Or you end up with people like me... That should be scary enough.

Mi stas ĉe la domen', kiu stas ĉe la montsupr'/montsur', or Mi estas surmonte endoma (I'm in the house that's on top of the mountain )

erinja:It's not that it isn't fair game, because it is. But sometimes a beginner is not aware that by choosing a certain form that is never really used, the meaning of what they say may be unclear to other Esperanto speakers. It isn't fair simply to ignore it and say nothing to the beginner.

I'm not saying use any phraseiology you want. It must convey your meaning. But we canNOT be bogged down with "that's not how we say it" which can very easily misconstrued as "that's wrong."

erinja:Some beginners, like you, may feel that "if it doesn't contradict the rules, it's fair game".

I'm not a beginner, and one of the "rules" is "it has to make sense"

ceigered:

erinja:Some beginners, like you, may feel that "if it doesn't contradict the rules, it's fair game". Some beginners might feel that, "Hey, why didn't you ever TELL me that no one ever says it this way? I thought you were the teacher!"

Or you end up with people like me... That should be scary enough.

Mi stas ĉe la domen', kiu stas ĉe la montsupr'/montsur', or Mi estas surmonte endoma (I'm in the house that's on top of the mountain )

the first is nothing more than bad Esperanto. There is no root "st" and "cxe" does NOT take a directional -n since it is, by its very meaning, a static preposition not to mention the fact that adverbs are not used as objects of prepositions. I like that second one (except it really should be endome)