前往目錄
回應

Prepositions as building blocks

貼文者: EldanarLambetur, 2011年8月17日

訊息: 43

語言: English

EldanarLambetur (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午2:38:06

Someone asked me about something today that is part of a wider thing that I've been wondering about from various Esperanto texts I've been reading. I've been reading around and haven't come across an explanation (so if you know where it is explained feel free to point me there!)

I've often noticed (and really like) the use of prepositions (like "ĉe" and "kun") in word building. But I'm wondering what effect it has on the use of verbs in particular. Take two examples:

- Kunlabori = to cooperate, collaborate (to work with?)
- Ĉeesti = to attend, to be present (to be at?)

I've noticed two different styles (with seemingly equal frequencies) with these kinds of verbs:

1. Mi kunlaboras vin, Mi ĉeestos la feston
2. Mi kunlaboras kun vi, Mi ĉeestos ĉe la festo

Are they equivalent and both permissible? Is one more or less hard to understand? Is there a different shade of meaning between them?

Is the accusative "n" just filling in for the preposition (like often it does with "je") or can the verbs truly be transitive? Or is it wrong to think of "kunlabori" as "to work with", and instead it is a kind of "labori" that is with another person but still intransitive, and therefore you have to repeat the kun/ĉe (so using the accusative "n" is only shorthand)?

Thanks for any help!

erinja (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午3:00:07

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.

In some cases you can take or leave the repeated preposition and it changes nothing but emphasis. "Mi eniras la buson", "Mi iras en la buson", and "Mi eniras en la buson" would all describe the same action, but perhaps with differing levels of emphasis.

darkweasel (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:18:23

erinja:I would never say "Mi ĉeestas ĉe la festo"
why not? i wouldn't recognize that as strange in any way...

Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:46:23

darkweasel:
erinja:I would never say "Mi ĉeestas ĉe la festo"
why not? i wouldn't recognize that as strange in any way...
I would say that in ĉe-estas ĉe the second ĉe is redundant. I haven't seen any examples of this in the tekstaro, or in print. Have you?

geo63 (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:46:28

From "Quo vadis" by Lidia Zamenhof:

"Petronius vekiĝis apenaŭ ĉirkaŭ tagmezo, kaj kiel ordinare, tre laca. La antaŭan tagon li ĉeestis festenon ĉe Nero, kiu longiĝis ĝis malfrua nokto..."

Of course it is so because there is:

"festeno ĉe Nero, kiun Petronius ĉeestis"

Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:48:36

geo63:La antaŭan tagon li ĉeestis festenon ĉe Nero, kiu longiĝis ĝis malfrua nokto..."
That's not ĉe-estis ĉe la festonon; the second ĉe relates to Nero's house (ĉe Nero).

geo63 (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:52:02

Miland:
geo63:La antaŭan tagon li ĉeestis festenon ĉe Nero, kiu longiĝis ĝis malfrua nokto..."
That's not ĉe-estis ĉe la festonon; the second ĉe relates to Nero's house (ĉe Nero).
Hey, I was not answering your post, but previous ones. You simply have sent yours before mine reached the thread. Compare the time stamps. sal.gif Sorry for the mess.

Miland (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午5:55:16

geo63:Hey, I was not answering your post, but previous ones. You simply have sent yours before mine reached the thread. sal.gif
Saluton! sal.gif Understood, mi pardonpetas. Well, perhaps readers who are komencantoj will still benefit.

erinja (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午6:02:16

ĉeestis ĉe festo would not be grammatically incorrect but I would see it as redundant, and it sounds strange to me.

However, as geo63 mentioned in his post, ĉeestis feston ĉe via domo would not be redundant, the second "ĉe" is just giving the location of the party.

36lima (顯示個人資料) 2011年8月17日下午7:02:21

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

回到上端