Translation:He paid for the damage to the window.
Aldonu "Ĉu" en la komenco de la frazo" :-) . Demando devas havi aŭ "ki-"-vorton aŭ komenci per "ĉu". Foje en parola lingvo, laŭ la situacio, eblas neglekti tion.
Pri la nomo de tiu usona sporto mi dubas, sed ne scias, mi ne havas vortaron ĉi tie. Nu, en ĉiuj landoj eblas difektigi fenestrojn, en Eŭropo ekz. "taŭgas" ludi piedpilkon.
Mi konsentas. "Li pagis por la riparo de la fenestro" estas pli akurata, laŭ mi, se la signifo estas, ke li (aŭ iu alia) damaĝis fenestron, kaj sekve li pagis monon, por ke iu riparu ĝin.
TheSoundOf4 wrote: "Kio estas damaĝa ? La fenestro. Do, mi denkas ke "la damaĝo de la fenestro " estus pli bone." (There was no reply link on his/her message).
Both in English and in Esperanto, we talk about damage to something, not of something. So, "al la fenestro" is good.
By the way, the Esperanto for "I think" is "mi pensas". As far as I know, "denki" is not an Esperanto verb.
Depending on how you approach learning grammar, this explanation may or may not help.
Al is also used to express indirect objects. A person can cause damage to something. In that last sentence, "a person" is the subject, "damage" is the direct object, and "something" is the indirect object. I would understand "damagxo al la fenstro" as damage created or caused TO a window (indirect object) and therefore "al" is fine here. It's very common.
I can accept that this is an idiomatic and correct use of the preposition in Esperanto, and I had actually neglected the fact that "al" is used to indicate indirect objects.
I think your analysis of the syntactic structure of the sentence is a bit off though. "Li" is the subject of the verb "pagis" (and the sentence), but structurally the verb has no overt objects at all. I suppose it might have a direct object (what he paid, perhaps "kvin dolarojn") and even an indirect object (whom he paid the money to, perhaps "al la lernejestro"). [I'm assuming here, I really don't know. What I have described is essentially just the argument structure that the English verb "to pay" has, but the Esperanto verb "pagi" need not have the same argument structure.] However, the object that does appear in the sentence (namely "la damaĝo al la fenestro") is a part of a prepositional adjunct to the sense of the verb. You might say that "la fenestro" is an indirect object of the noun "damaĝo," but that fact is essentially unrelated to the question of the roles of "li" and "damaĝo" in the particular sentence we have here. (Regardless, however, "damaĝo" is not the direct object of anything in this sentence. It is a prepositional object. If this sentence had an overtly expressed direct object, i.e., the kind that would be marked with -n, it would presumably be the price that was paid for the damage: an amount of money or a prize chicken or something like that.)
All of this, however, does make me wonder what verbs the damaĝ- stem allows. I would have assumed that damaĝi was a verb which meant "to damage," but you're making me wonder if the correct Esperanto usage would not be damaĝigi. Does anyone know?
> I think your analysis of the syntactic structure of the sentence is a bit off though.
My analysis was based on looking at numerous examples of the word "damaĝo" in context, and I am standing by it. You are of course correct in your analysis of the sentence - but I was talking about the implied sentence of the subphrase "damaĝo al la fenstro." In many similar phrases, the word kaŭzi is stated explicitly (either as a verb or a participle.) Here it is only implied (la damaĝo kaŭzita al la fenestro.)
The correct word is damaĝi not damaĝigi - unless you're trying to cause someone to damage something.
My apologies, I have just realized on rereading your previous post that the sentence you were analyzing was not the sentence we are discussing ("Li pagis por la damaĝo al la fenestro"), but your own sentence ("A person can cause damage to something"). Your analysis of your own sentence is spot on, but I find it strange because (1) it's an English sentence, and (2) it is essentially an analysis of the argument structure of the verb "to cause" rather than of the noun "damage" or the verb "to damage."
The fundamental question, even assuming that the argument structure of the Esperanto verb "kaŭzi" is the same as the English verb "to cause," is why this would be the essential consideration at stake in the phrase "damaĝo al la fenestro." If, as you tell me, the correct verb is "damaĝi" with the thing damaged as a direct object, then it seems like it ought to be perfectly normal and idiomatic to use the phrase "damaĝo DE la fenestro" in the same way that one uses "de" to describe the object of destruction because the thing destroyed is the direct object of "detrui" (a Google search found literally a handful of examples of the exact phrase "la detruo al" but tens of thousands for "la detruo de"). I don't doubt that Esperantists regularly say "damaĝo al," but I do wonder whether that isn't simply because they're essentially translating English (or some other similar language) one word at a time rather than working inside a natively Esperanto syntax with authentically Esperanto lexical rules.