"Kiel ni povas disvastigi Esperanton?"
Translation:How can we spread Esperanto?
Fakte, gxi estas suficxe bona sur tosto (toasto? rostpano?)
Tosto estas la saluto oni diras dum trinkado. Toasto (kaj rostpano) estas brunita (aŭ rostita) pano.
Simpla eraro, sed mi anticipas, ke la plejparto de la lernantoj faros tiun.
Nun ili havas malpliajn kialojn.
Estas alia fuŝo vi faris, sed mi lasos ĝin preterpasi, ĉar oni povas argumenti ĝin.
Cxu la alia fusxo estas "sur"? mi pensis ke gxi povus esti "kun" aux io alia.
It's just a Youtube video. I don't know why it doesn't work on Android. I'll try it.
In the meantime,
- try this link "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQFr3XEPVo",
- or even search for "How to Spread Esperanto Intelligently | Let’s Make it Cool" on your Youtube application.
And tell me whether it works or not.
the esperantist agenda is to spread their propaganda to our children
La celo de la esperantistoj estas disvastigi ilian fipropagandon al niaj gefiloj.
Note that propagando is morally neutral (and means "messaging"), and that agendo has an idiomatic meaning to be avoided.
Talk about it on Facebook? Use the occasional phrase in conversation? Reference books you can only find in Esperanto? Teach it to your family and speak in it together when you go out?
However, don't, as did someone I know, write a letter in Esperanto to your congress-critter. I understand that he's now on a don't fly list.
Social Media! Mention Esperanto in English. Get people curious. Start a local group. It isn't easy, but you can search on Lernu.net for other people in your area who have used the site, and send them a message. Encourage people on Lernu to list their city, state, county providence...not just country. Make it easier to search.
By encouraging and creating more jobs and commerce in esperanto. Money is strongest incentive in the world these days.
"Kiel ni povas disvasti Esperanton?" = "How can we spread Esperanto?"
"Kiel ni povas disvastigi Esperanton? = "How can we get Esperanto to spread?"
 The ultimate root of disvastigi [also in English] is vast (i.e. huge).
So it is an adjective which is transformed into a transitive verb as vastigi;
which then corresponds to expand and thus disvastigi to spread.
In English, and a lot European languages for that matter, there are both a transitive and intransitive verb under the same name that seem like the same thing but are technically two separate verbs.
There is a transitive verb "spread" that means "to stretch out : extend spread its wings for flight" and "to distribute over an area spread fertilizer." This can take a direct object. In fact, that's how you can tell if the "spread" you are looking at is transitive.
Then, there is an intransitive verb "spread" that means "to become dispersed, distributed, or scattered" or "to become known or disseminated panic spread rapidly." Note how the definitions are in the passive voice and therefore this "spread" cannot have a direct object.
I believe the term for this type of a verb is an ergative verb. Other good examples that come to mind are "to stop," "to end," and "to shake." Languages like Turkish or Korean do not have these identical twin verbs and have entirely different verbs (usually with just the addition of a causative infix like in Esperanto) for the two cases.
It seems to me that "disvasti" is that intransitive spread and "disvastigi" is the transitive spread. So "Kiel ni povas disvastigi Esperanton" is grammatically correct and can in fact be translated as "How can we get Esperanto to [intransitive version of] spread?" "How can we cause the point in time where we can say 'the language is spreading?'" "Kiel ni povas disvasti Esperanton" is not grammatical because disvasti is the intransitive spread and cannot take the object Esperanton. If you translate it literally into English, you can't hear that the "spread" you are using is a whole different verb entirely. I think that is what your question is.
The Duolingo notes, to my muddled mind, seem to say the opposite of what you have said. Can you tell me what I'm missing? The Duolingo notes are pasted below:
Many verbs in English can be both transitive and intransitive, but this is not possible in Esperanto, in which verbs are normally either transitive or intransitive, but not both. In English, we can say "The girl closed the window" and "The window closed" using the same verb, even thought the meaning is slightly different: in the first sentence the girl is acting on the window, while in the second the window became closed by itself. Examples of English words that can be both transitive and intransitive include "to open", "to close", "to start", "to finish", "to change" and "to move". These verbs in Esperanto-- malfermi, fermi, komenci, fini, ŝangi, movi--are all transitive, and to make them intransitive you must add the suffix -iĝ:
How it clicked for me is to not imagine -iĝ/-ig as transitive or intransitive but it's base meaning. At its core, -iĝ is the "become" infix. Bela - beautiful. Beliĝi - to become beautiful. You could also say "to get beautiful."
This may seem like a bit of a logical jump, but "becoming" or "getting" is related to passivity. In English, if you "get attacked," or the room "gets cleaned," that is passive but also is related to the changing of state. The focus of the sentence is how the subject, which would be an object in the active voice, changed from not attacked to attacked or not cleaned to cleaned. The passive voice is formed by be/get + a past participle, which is an adjective, right? And you can "become" an adjective, no?
If you focus on the state "the dinner is eaten," you don't say much about the action. My focus is on how dinner is in this constant state of fully eaten. But if I say "the dinner got eaten," I am drawing attention to the action instead. It changed states. The fate of the dinner after someone ate it is not relevant to this sentence. That is what -iĝ is. And because the passive voice in general can never have an object, superficially you can conclude that that is its purpose. With adjectives, it means becomes. With action verbs, it means get + past participle.
I think -ig is a bit easier to wrap your head around. At its core, it is the causative infix. Another way to think of it is -ify or "cause + adjective-ness onto." In the example of beligi, the verb means to cause beauty. This verb does require an object, though, as do all -ig verbs. Mi beligis la ĉambron. "I made the room beautiful" is the most natural translation, but you can think of it also as "I beautified the room," which looks a lot more like the Esperanto version without a dangling adjective. As for action verbs using -ig, it is the same principle. Morti - to die. Mortigi - to kill, but it is the exact same as the adjective's case if you think of it like to cause deadness onto someone, to deadify someone. Notice how you have to have a direct object in these examples.
Now, the part that seems to be confusing you is probably the table in the notes that shows transitive verbs with the base verbs and the intransitive side with -iĝ. The -iĝ rule still stands. Fermi means to close, and fermiĝi means to get closed. It is related to the changing of states from the action being done to not. The window goes from a state of not closed to closed. That is the focus of the verb. But this base fermi form is a inherently a transitive verb that /must/ have an object. If your English sentence using "close" does not have a direct object, you cannot use this verb in Esperanto. If you say in English "I closed the window," you use that base fermi form, which is always always always transitive in Esperanto. Mi fermis la fenestron. But if in English you want to tell someone that in general "the window closes", that it is not stuck, it is intransitive in English, and in Esperanto you can never never never use a transitive verb without a direct object. The translation would be "la fenestro fermiĝas." Literally translated into English, that works in the same situation, granted it's not the most natural wording. "The window gets closed," [so you don't have to fix it]
But what about disvasti and disvastigi? That is the opposite of the situation I just gave, isn't it? It is simply the exact reverse. The base verb disvasti is intrinsically intransitive. It can never take an direct object. To allow an object, you need to make the verb causative. You have to "cause spreading-ness onto something." What the Tips and notes said still stands; many verbs in English can be both transitive and intransitive, but this is not possible in Esperanto, in which verbs are normally either transitive or intransitive, but not both. These base verbs before -iĝ or -ig are either transitive or intransitive but never both, which determines which infix you use to change its transitivity. How do you know whether the base verb is transitive or intransitive? Unfortunately, you can't tell by just looking at it. You have to see its usage or definition in a dictionary. The good news is that if you see a sentence use it as an example and see a direct object, you are 100% sure it is transitive, and if you do not see a direct object, you are 100% sure it is intransitive in Esperanto.
Thank you. You have addressed my confusion in the last few sentences,
"How do you know whether the base verb is transitive or intransitive?
Unfortunately, you can't tell by just looking at it. You have to see its usage or definition in a dictionary. The good news is that if you see a sentence use it as an example and see a direct object, you are 100% sure it is transitive, and if you do not see a direct object, you are 100% sure it is intransitive in Esperanto."
My problem with disvasti (to spread) is that I see it as transitive eg. "I spread the butter onto some toast."
So I could rewrite my original post simply as "Why is 'disvasti' treated as an intransitive base verb?"
[Edited to include] I think I've got it now:
Every verb is intransitive unless it has to operate ON something.
A lot of text and I got lost.
I think that the gist of it is that adding ~ig and ~iĝ to appropriate words changes transitivity, and that the clue to whether a verb is transitive or not is whether it takes an object in its normal (i.e. without affix) state. Which doesn't seem to answer the question which was asked.
Thanks for the short comment. [It turns out that] I was trying to find a simple way to determine whether a verb is either transitive or intransitive. It now seems to me that every verb is intransitive unless it has to operate ON something.
Eg. An aeroplane flies (flugas is therefore intransitive).
A pilot flies an aeroplane (flugigas is used because a pilot cannot fly without a plane)
In the same way "Esperanto povas disvasti," thus "Ni povas disvastigi Esperanton."
Am I right?
Sounds good to me. If in doubt check the PIV or whatever dictionary you may have. It appears, to me, that very few of the electronic dictionaries available include transitivity when defining verbs.
You may also want the mnemonic which I learned way back when: You make a pig become sausiĝ.
My opinion is that if one needs to take overly long to explain something it is because one does not completely understand it already.
Ceasing the cult-like propaganda in this course would be a good start ;)