"The family sat down at the table."

Translation:La familio sidiĝis ĉe la tablo.

August 15, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why is "sidiĝis" used instead of just "sidis"?

"Sidis" is already intransitive, so I don't see the reason to use the "-iĝ-" affix with it.


Because verbs like sidi, kuŝi, stari etc represent the stationary acts and not the actions required to come to that positions. This is a distinction Esperanto makes but some other languages like English doesn't. "La familio sidis" should be understood as "the family was [already] sitting" if you like. By saying sidiĝis, you indicate that they were standing before and they transformed their bodies into the sitting form to eat :).

Another example: "Mia patro eniris en la ĉambron kaj sidiĝis". Saying sidis would not work as nicely, because sitting down from staring is different than stationarily sitting, and what is meant here is that my father came and sat down, he was not already stationarily sitting.


excellent answer.


Doesn't this mean "The family sat down NEXT TO the table"? Is this an idiom?


As a native speaker of English, "at the table" is where I've always sat to eat, yes, if that's what you're asking. If you're "at the table," you're properly seated with your feet under the table, all properly and politely ready to eat, or eating.

If you are "next to" the table, you aren't sitting properly to eat. You might be standing, you might be playing with a dog or a toy on the floor, or you might be sitting near enough to talk to someone who is "at the table."

Remember, prepositions are just strange and arbitrary. They never match exactly from language to language.


Thanks Patricia, that's exactly what I meant. I wanted to know if Esperanto also had this difference, which you explained very well.


Googling round, I find that "sidiĝis ĉe la tablo" seems much more common, but "sidiĝis apud la tablo" is used occasionally.


Ĉe la tablo was my 1st instinct and it was accepted. I was on the fence about la tablo vs la tablon since movement is kinda of implied.


Does "at the table" mean something else?


Why is it "ĉe la tablo" instead of "ĉe la tablon"? Why doesn't tablo take the directional "n" here? Is going from not sitting at the table to sitting at it not enough of a change of location?


I too see a motion to getting sat down.


I believe the N would be to show direction and they were merely sitting at the table not going into it.


Different speakers at different times in history seem to have different intuitions about this. I've also found that some speakers who insist that there should be an -n showing the movement of the sitter's backside into the seat, will react differently in a grammatically and logically identical situation with a different verb that also reflects a similar change of location. I've found authors such as Zamenhof and Piron who seem to use it both ways - sit down in // sit down into.

My own view is that one changes from not "sitting on the chair" to "sitting on the chair" - so no motion.

Put another way, it seems to me that one is NOT "sit-moving onto the chair", but rather becoming "sitting on the chair."


The family is in the act of sitting at the table, implying direction. In another sentence I encountered in this lesson, "Sit down on this chair / Sidiĝu sur ĉi tiun seĝon", we clearly have an accusative. In both cases, direction is implied, so why is this "apud la tablo" instead of "apud la tablon"?


See my comment about "different intuitions" elsewhere in this thread.


I still don't get what's the difference between je, cxe and en


Why apud?

Ĉe would be my first choice here. Apud suggest that they’re merely sitting down “near” the table. It’s not clear to me why the author of this sentence chose this word.

As for whether there needs to be an -n to show “motion toward” - ask yourself how often you say “sit down onto” or “sit down into.” Probably never.

Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.