I thought "komenci" was transitive? According to the lesson notes, shouldn't it be "komenciĝi"? Or is the object somehow implied?
Came here to check if someone had already pointed this out, as I was wondering the same thing.
I guess at least it wouldn't be komenciĝas, here, though, because "we" are not the thing that begins. As in, we begin doing something, but we ourselves don't begin. I think it would only be "komenciĝas" in that case.
Ni komencas. Kie ni komencas? Both are transitive, only we don't mention the object. Where is the object in "komencas"? Mostly because we know the object already from before. And leave it out. Ni komencas [la lecionon]. Kie ni komencas [la ekskurson]? Ni komencas [la ekskurson] en la domo.
"Ni komencas" means that we are actively included in doing the lesson/the trip, not only another person/persons makes it.
The object itself can only "komenciĝi". La leciono komenciĝas. La ekskurso komenciĝas. Don't wonder, that's the most difficult part of the language, to learn the exact meaning of the verbs. "komenci" means "to make that something begins". La instruisto komencas la lecionon. Still against my language feeling, that the poor lesson must not "komenci" by itself, but has to "komenciĝi". It's defined that way. La leciono komenciĝas.
That is how I since came to understand it, yes. Thank you. And presumably, you can also have a verbal infinitive as an object, implicit or otherwise (ni komencas ludi). I don't know if that actually is considered to be the object, linguistically speaking, but at least those sorts of sentences are also common.
Mi scias, vi vidas du vivoj. En unu vivo, vi estas Tomaso A. Andersono, programskribulo por bona programkompanio. Vi havas socia sekureco nombro, pagas vian impostoj, kaj vi ... helpas vian casera efektivigas sxian rubon. La alia vivo vi vivas en komputiloj, kie vi iros kune la alia nomo "Neo," kaj vi estas malbonagula por cxiu komputila krimo ni havas leĝojn por. Unu el tiuj vivoj havas estontecon, kaj unu ne havas...
Ni proponas vin elekton.
Kie is not the direct object of komencas, because "where" is not the thing you are about to start when you say this. Kie is an (interrogative) adverb of place.
kie ni komencas la dancon? - where are we starting the dance?
kion ni komencas? - what are we starting?
And to be clear, what Kanguruo and Bookrabbit were talking about is that the accusative -n suffix can also be used to mark a destination. For example:
kie vi kuras? - where are you running? (e.g. in the forest)
kien vi kuras? - where to are you running? (e.g. to the park)
As far as I know that's the only situation where kie can be in accusative case. But what do I know, I'm a beginner too.
"Kie", meaning "where", is not the object in this sentence. It's an adverbial expression that specifies something about the action (namely, the location), but it's not the undergoer, as it were.
You can get an -n after "kie", but in a different sense. This would be an accusative of direction, specifying it's toward some place, rather than at a place. Compare "Kie vi flugas?"—"Where (at which location) are you flying?" with "Kien vi flugas?"—"Where (to which location) are you flying?".
You're welcome; perhaps another example will help. "Ŝi marŝas en la domo"—"She walks in the house", i.e. she is already in the house and she is walking around in there. "Ŝi marŝas en la domon"—"She walks into the house", i.e. she was outside and now she walks in.
The accusative is one of the most frequently confused elements of the language, but if it helps, even experienced and very fluent speakers tend to make some mistakes in it (although it depends a bit on their linguistic background as well; if their native language has a productive and overt accusative, they tend to have fewer difficulties). So even if you don't always get it right, you can still be a very good speaker, and you won't stand out a lot, if at all.