"Katidoj iĝas katoj."
Translation:Kittens become cats.
Fariĝi implies that the kittens have a choice, & put forth effort to become cats. Iĝas implies that it's something which just happens.
Could you provide a reference for this? I suspect the answer is far more mundane. My speculation is that the course authors were looking for sentences to teach the word "iĝi" and came up with this one. Personally, I would have said "fariĝi" here.
Edit: No, you certainly don't have to remember what you said 11 months ago, but 26 upvotes, I would hope that we could assure people that the content of what you said is actually true (or not).
Since you don't have a reference, here's what I have come up with. Jordan (Being Colloqual in Esperanto) says on this topic:
iĝi is not used as much as the longer compound fariĝi = “to become.” Logic will be on your side if you use iĝi, but you will be speaking more colloquial Esperanto if you use fariĝi.
The simpler answer would have been to tell munderlohsean that Fariĝi is just as good as iĝi here - and maybe even better.
The course still contains mistakes (much fewer than 11 months ago for sure) but I'm not really "second guessing" anybody here. They've out and told me that they'e done stuff like that. "Here's a word - what sentence can we make for it?"
You ask me to remember what I was thinking almost a year ago? I believe that I was working on the premise of the mnemonic Make a pig become sausiĝ. Something becomes something else, such as kittens becoming cats, or seeds becoming flowers. But fari means to "do, make, perform an action" so I may have confused the "make" meaning of fari with the "make" meaning of igi.
However, I will still argue that fariĝi implies at least some level of conscious choice. The use of the simple iĝi doesn't. And, it's clear, understandable and lacking in confusion, as someone once said in another of these threads: "Klara estas ĝusta."
I'm not going to second guess the course authors, here.
These examples are from Reta Vortaro:
Subite fariĝis nokto
Li fariĝis malsana
They do not seem voluntary to me.
There is no question that Fred is mistaken here. His reply to munderlohsean above needs to be downvoted, and my rebuttal (which starts out "could you provide a reference for this") needs to be upvoted. At the very least, people reading this thread should consider the various comments and decide whom to believe.
Note that Fred declined to provide a reference.
Fred is making very good progress in Esperanto, but it's clear from his other comments that he's still learning. I have been teaching Esperanto for 18 years and have been using it daily even longer.
In addition to the reference I provided above and the examples you gave from Reta Vortaro, PMEG addresses this same question. Nowhere does it say that fariĝi implies voluntary action. In fact, I recently spent a week at NASK in Bertilo's class (Bertilo is the author of PMEG) and this question came up. Bertilo said once more that iĝi and fariĝi are "100%" synonymous. So if you don't want to believe me, and if you don't want to believe Jordan, maybe you can believe Bertilo.
I have never claimed to be a final arbiter on anything. I will, and have, accepted that I was mistaken, mia kulpo.
However, this is almost beginning to feel as a series of personal attacks against me. I have conceded to authority, now can we please drop this and focus on other, preferably important, issues.
I have also, in my defense, to note that there was no one, or scarcely anybody, who was taking the time (or able) to answer the questions of komencantoj when I responded to what seemed like a reasonable question. I answered as best I could, I was wrong. Now Duo has several skilled and talented linguists roaming these fora. I do not any longer feel the need to respond to questions asked by freŝbakitaj Esperantistoj. I also wish to avoid unnecessary conflict and dissension.
Ĉu tiu ĉi fariĝos finita?
I know, and you I appreciate, mostly. (However "vote down" does have some unnecessarily painful connotations.) I also spent part of this last weekend sitting on a panel trying to defend Esperanto against some very loud, and knowledgeable, Klingons. I'm still a little gun shy. I was the only guy on the panel who was not a linguist by profession.
I was also the only person who could translate some of the very challenging audience chosen sentences. (No word on how well I did on some of them, spontaneous translations of Sci-Fi fandom can be difficult.) But, as I said, I'm still feeling a bit tender.
For sure it's not meant as a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel that way. Actually, looking over your comments on this thread, I do not see where you ever said (till now) that you were mistaken a year ago. This only came up again because people still read this thread and one of them considered and tried to make sense of the explanation which you now concede was mistaken - and posted some counter examples.
I would like to underscore that everything I said about you personally has been positive.
I am not sure whether you are thinking that I doubted your view on the subject. I simply chose to append some evidence that I found. I am just a komencanto, much more inexperienced than most people here and definitively than any of you two, so please excuse me if I do not enter your debate. As for your request for up or down voting any comment, I think that everyone is responsible for whatever they choose to believe. My personal position is to try to double-check the facts presented, and before giving credit to anybody's opinons I prefer to review their former comments and make an educated judgement about their quality. Yours seem alright, and I would not worry for people not being able to discern the wheat from the chaff.
Sorry for the confusion. It was clear that your examples are counter to Frank's claim. My recent comment was a reaction to the fact that you (Oceanotti) even needed to take the time to post them. It's really not a debate. It's not even a question. There are lots of fine points of contention in advanced Esperanto, but the difference between igxi and farigxi is not one of them.
"Fariĝi" is perfectly fine here - and arguably the better choice.
Okay, sed mi ankoraŭ pli ŝatas iĝi por tia ĉi uzado, malgraŭ tiu kiu Dr-o Jordan diras esti familiara.
Hm. I think fariĝi would show more effort done on the kittens side. But in ĝeneral that's a nuance (I'm not even sure I'm right) and usually iĝi or fariĝi might be used, no one pays attention to such details
How do I know if it is the cats that are becoming kittens or the kittens that are becoming cats? Or said straight out, - why are there no accusative n here???
Short answer - sometimes word order does matter. (Joffysloffy gave a good answer, but it's nested way down.)
iĝi means "to become," as opposed to igi which means "to make" (vastly simplified but adequately understandable, I hope.) Iĝi does not take the accusative, but igi does. (Why? I don't really know. I grew up speaking English so I never had to understand transitivity.)
So, to answer your first question, katidoj (kittens) iĝas (become) katoj (cats). If the concepts were reversed it would make no sense, since we know that nothing has ever been known to become younger than it has been previously (except for one Bob Dylan song, but it's pretty old now too.)
Unless you are purposefully writing surrealistic articles or stories in Esperanto, be assured that the most logical interpretation is probably the correct one.
Hope this helps.
Very well, but in these modern time if a person wants to change gender - how do you know which way it is? virino iĝas viro. (Remember word-order doesn't matter). It really doesn't make sense to me.
In that case I would probably (because I have) say Virino viriĝas. (or Viro iniĝas, depending) (someone else may choose to correct that, please do.)
I don't normally send people to other online web-sources, since I feel that most of us are smart enough to find them on our own, but http://esperantodictionary.org/ has a bit of, I can't call it "discussion," but assistance in dealing with that sort of issue. The person running that site is, herself, trans. (And a very intelligent, and knowledgeable person from all accounts.)
I do hope that this helps.
Sorry but it was just an example. My point is, normally we need the assucative indication, - because how else would I know if the boy reads the book (viro legas libron) or the book is reading the boy (viron legas libro). Of course this is a stupid example - everyone knows that a book doesn't read boys! But in general it's good, because then we can see who is doing something to another thing. I love you doesn't need to be reciprocal and both ways are possible, - so here it does matter (Mi amas vin <> min amas vi).
But the same thing is true for become. Very often it does make sense. The boy become an adult, the lady become a dancer, the wood become a house (probably you will need more than wood, - but still).
But sometimes it's not so clear. It does make sense to say to car become garbage, but it also could make sense to say this garbage will become a car.
Verbs like these are called copulae (or copulas). This is not a complete answer to your question, but when using these, it is generally clear what the subject is and what the complement is, otherwise another construction would be used (so your question isn't very relevant in that sense). Also, there are plenty of things in Esperanto where word order does matter (e.g., ankaŭ, eĉ and so on) and maybe this is another example (not sure though).
Well, I hope that someone can help you, because I'm about to go over my head into material I don't really understand here.
However, "La aŭto disfalis al rubon" would probably be a more fitting way of saying that a car becomes garbage. I'll leave it here for now. Thanks for putting up with me.
Is it totally forbidden to say, for example "Katidoj iĝas katojn" (with katojn taking the accusative -n)?
It seems strange to generally use a permissive word order and use the accusative to indicate the subject of a verb, but then to have a specific class of verbs where word order is fixed.
In this particular example (and in many others I've come across), it seems that using the accusative would make the sentence clearer (since "kittens become cats" and "cats become kittens" don't mean the same thing at all), so it seems that either one must stick to subject-verb-object order all the time, use some other word order most of the time and confusingly switch to SVO whenever a copula crops up, or deliberately avoid using copulas ("Katidoj katiĝas?)
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the copula can just go and copulas itself.
Yes, because it is simply ungrammatical to use the accusative case to denote the subject complement of a copula.
Also, you're just swapping one system of exceptions for another: For certain intransitive verbs you want people to suddenly use the accusative case to understand something particular about this verb. This will most likely just confuse people about the accusative case, since now all of a sudden you can use it with intransitive verbs!
Furthermore, the standard word order in Esperanto is SVO. Therefore, if one sees a sentence that is supposedly ambiguous as to what is the object and what is the subject, then one deduce this based on the word order, or just the context. Obviously, if there is such ambiguity that the meaning of a sentence cannot easily be deduced thusly, then the writer of that sentence did a poor job. No language is perfect and non-ambiguous, and Esperanto is no exception.
Firstly, thank you for the response.
Since I posted, I've been reading up on the topic and betwen that and your post I'm beginning to understand what the deal is with transitive and intransitive verbs. It still feels inelegant, but at least I can see the reasoning behind it, and at least Esperanto has the flexibility to write around inelegant features.
However, I'm very surprised at your comment about the standard word order in Esperanto. Everything I've seen up until now has clearly stated that subject, object, and verb can be ordered freely, with the accusative identifying the object. I can now see why that rule doesn't apply in this case - there is no object because intransitive verbs never have objects - but this seems to go directly against what I've already been taught. I'd appreciate it if you could further expound on that point, because there's clearly some other detail I'm missing here.
You can indeed freely move them around, provided that it do not cause any confusion or ambiguity. However, the standard order be preserved when things become more complicated, such as when the accusative case denotes both the logical subject and the object of a verb. Or when the accusative case cannot be used for the object (and also could not for the subject). Consider the following example:
Mi lasas vin bati lin. = I let you hit him.
Here the default order applies: vin is the logical subject of bati, while lin is the direct object. If you'd start swapping these around, the sentence gets confusing very quickly. Even Mi lasas vin lin bati. may not be immediately clear.
Another example is when the subject and object are both names, or correlatives ending in -om, or some other adverb-da construction:
Tom vidas Sara. Who sees whom? Tom sees Sara, due to the standard word order.
Kiom da homoj ŝatas multe da bestoj? Is this “How many people like a lot of animals?” or “How many people do a lot of animals like?”? The former, due to the word order.
So in most cases what you were taught is fine: You can swap around the subject and object, if it does not cause ambiguities. I hope this helps!
Good answer. Word order is not as free in Esperanto as some new people have been led to believe. There are good reasons for not using the accusative with estas.... at the moment, though, I'm not able to give that the treatment it deserves.
Thank you! The word order is indeed most definitely not free; it's just not as restrictive as, say, English.
The -n is only used when something is doing something to something else. Like "estas", "iĝas" doesn't use -n because the kittens aren't doing anything to the cats. They're simply transforming.
Tiu cxi frazo devus esti la unua frazo el cxi tiu "skill".
Soorrrryyy in advance for errors in that.
Just one serious correction, and it's one you may not have learned, yet: Lertaĵo = skill
Hum... if "lerta" means "skilled" and "lerte" means "skillfully," why doesn't "lerto" itself mean "skill"? (I don't even see an entry for "lerto" in the PIV!).
Good question. When I checked my Esperanto to English dictionary I found that lerta means something more like "Clever; able, adroit, deft, dexterous, good (at), handy, skillful, talented. Lert(ec)o = dexterity, knack, skill; but lertaĵo actually means "act of skill, a dodge."
So I must apologize for my error above. A skill level, in a lesson like this, might still be a Lertaĵo but one could as easily call it Lertero or Lertnivelo
Hmm, while I'm here and have the book:
Lertego = "consummate skill"
Lertigi = train
Lertiĝi = gain skill
Lertulo = clever/skillful person, adept
Paflertulo = marksman
Mallerta = awkward, clumsy, maladroit, unskillful
Movlerta = agile
I gave you a lingot for making me do research I should have done earlier.
Essentially. The listings I can find anywhere seem to make little or no differentiation.
Enjoy the Lingot.
Hum, ok, thanks: I'll use "lerto" and "lerteco" indistinctly, then.
What's funny is I didn't even think I needed to look for "lerto" in the dictionary: Esperanto has taught me to "know in my gut" what a word must mean based on other words (e.g. if "lerta" means "skilled," then surely "lerto" means "skill.") I almost flipped when I didn't find "lerto" in the PIV!
Ĉiuokaze, dankon por redoni ordon al la menso de juna esperantisto. :-D
Mi konsentas kun Joffysloffy.
Se vi provas diri, ke katidoj venas el plenkreskajn katojn, la plej kutima, kaj komprena, radiko estas nask-. Esperanto malofte uzas eŭfemismojn aŭ ĉirkaŭparolojn kiel uzas la angla.
Venas el _~n = comes out of _. (Indicative of direction)
Ĉar mi vidis ambaŭ metodojn (kaj aliaj) por uzi kompren~ en tia frazo, mi ne disputos.
FredCapp, post "el" oni neniam uzu la akuzativon.
"Kelkaj rolvortetoj per si mem montras direkton: al, ĝis, el kaj de. Tiuj rolvortetoj neniam montras pozicion. Post ili oni ne uzu N-finaĵon"
Uf! Vi ĝustas! Mi pensis, ke oni uzas ĝin post en kaj sub kaj tiel plu, sed tute forgesis, ke oni neniam uzas ĝin post al kaj el.
Mi dankas vin pro viaj serĉ-kapabloj, kaj por kapti maljunulon, kiu ŝanjas iomete konfuzetan.
Ne dankinde! Ĉiuj rajtas erari kaj forgesi iam kaj tiam, ĉu ne? :-)
Se mi estus perfektulo, mi ne bezonus Duo-n por ekzerci mian lingvo-uzadon. (ankaŭ mi estus junulo…) Dankon por via kompreno.
@FredCapp Oni ne ekzercas sian lingvouzadon, oni ekzercas sin en lingvouzado ;). La objekto de ekzerci estas tiu, kies lerteco pliboniĝas; ne la lerteco mem. (Ekzemple, oni povas ekzerci soldatojn aŭ siajn orelojn.)
Okay, I need to spend more time actually talking this language. Where do you live?
Bone provinte, sed ne; igi neniam signifas krei, fari, produkti, ktp.
Via frazo tamen povas esti ĝusta en la ĝusta kunteksto. Jen ekzemplo: “La katidoj forkuras! Kio estas la kaŭzo? La katoj igas la katidojn [forkuri].” ;). Rimarku, ke la signifo estas tute malsama.
The dictionary that I was using gave the following definition.<pre>
igi: cause, get, make</pre>
So I was hoping for "Cats cause kittens" and wishing to use igi where the original sentence gave the use of iĝi. This was attempting to use it, I thought, in the same way as "A cat causes kittens to exist.". A failed attempt at humour.
Mi provos uzi la Plenan Ilustritan Votaron. Ĉu la akuzativo estas ĝusta?
Mi estas malrapida lernulo, do trovis la Plenan Ilustritan Votaron malfacila.
Again I'm sure my sentence structure is problematic.
I'm a slow learner, so find PIV daunting (but the practice will help). Thanks for swapping to English for me.