1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Sit down on this chair!"

"Sit down on this chair!"

Translation:Sidiĝu sur ĉi tiun seĝon!

September 14, 2015

7 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SamuelBradley

It's accusative because motion is involved. A useful example involves a cat moving under a table: 'la kato moviĝis sub la tablo' means that the cat was moving while (already) under the table, whereas 'la kato moviĝis sub la tablon' indicates the cat moved to end up being under the table. The absence or presence of a preposition such as 'sur' has no influence on the fact that motion demands an accusative ending for the destination.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/howaboutyes

Is this accusative because of movement?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/donaldo_zouras

I am wondering the same thing, because "sur" is a preposition.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Michael254537

I did not use the accusative and the answer was accepted. Could there be a difference between movement of the subject and directing movement? Or was the program incorrect in accepting my response?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Gerbaltic

Difference between sidigxu and sidu?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/onewhohopes

Sidu means to sit, but gives no preference to one already sitting and one who is sitting down right now. Ex: Rugxa-red. Rugxigxi-To become red. So sidigu is telling someone to sit when they weren't before. I personally got very mixed up between the two ig suffixes, so I'll explain it here. The suffix -igx means to begin something that is not being done now; whereas -ig (without the thing on top), means to cause an action, for example morti-to die, mortigi-to kill. Sidi-to sit, sidigi-to cause someone else to sit.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

Why is there an -n on sur ĉi tiun seĝon?

Sidiĝi means to become seated, to sit down, and many speakers have the intuition that becoming seated involves motion into a location. The way to express this was well-explained by SamuelBradley:

It's accusative because motion is involved. A useful example involves a cat moving under a table: 'la kato moviĝis sub la tablo' means that the cat was moving while (already) under the table, whereas 'la kato moviĝis sub la tablon' indicates the cat moved to end up being under the table. The absence or presence of a preposition such as 'sur' has no influence on the fact that motion demands an accusative ending for the destination.

If you'd like a longer explanation with more examples, try this link:

https://blogs.transparent.com/esperanto/keys-to-understanding-esperanto-prepositions/

But does sitting down really express motion?

I'd said that many speakers have this intuition. It is, however, not universal. If you look at it as "starting to sit", then there is no motion. Sur la seĝo only says where (not where-to) one ends up. I've discussed this with some fluent speakers and they are often very surprised to hear this. In fact, this question was discussed explicitly by Zamenhof, who wrote:

Post “sidiĝi” ni povas egale bone uzi la akuzativon kaj la nominativon, depende de tio, ĉu ni volas esprimi movon aŭ komencon de nova stato. Tamen, ĉar la nominativo estas ĉiam pli simpla kaj pli facila, ol la akuzativo, tial ŝajnas al mi, ke estus bone, se ni alkutimiĝus en ĉiuj okazoj dubaj preferi la nominativon.

What's interesting to me is that many speakers who have a strong intuition of motion in sidiĝi often don't have this intuition with other verbs of similar structure like loĝi or esti.

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