"Don't try to impress me!"
Translation:Ne provu impresi min!
You are correct that PIV lists one as "tr"(transitive) and the other as "ntr"(intransitive) - but if you look at the definitions and the sample sentences, you'll see that the pattern that this sentence demonstrates is actually quite common in Esperanto. The sentence is fine as as it is.
This is another good example of why it's less important to focus on whether a verb is "tr" or "ntr" - and to focus instead on what the verb means and how it's used in sentences.
In PIV, I see three definitions for provi that would not apply to this sentence. The fourth definition is "peni fari ion." So, while "provi impresi" might be acceptable, I think peni is a better fit and should be accepted as a correct solution (it wasn't). The next time I see this type of construction (and a lot of sentences in Duo are like this), I'll try "peni" (no pun intended, LOL) and suggest it if it's not accepted.
No. This is why I say that it's less important to focus on whether a verb is "tr" or "ntr" - and to focus instead on what the verb means and how it's used in sentences.
"To dine" is intransitive. You can never "dine something". However, in some contexts, to dine and to eat are very similar.
- We dine at 6.
- We eat at 6.
If we want to specify WHAT we eat, we can.
- We eat dinner at 6.
Adding "dinner" doesn't change the meaning of eat. That is - with or without "dinner", the "we" is still putting food in their mouths at 6.
What -ig- does is different. It changes who is doing what.
- provi - to try
- provigi - to cause someone to try.