"La familio sidiĝis ĉe la tablo."

Translation: The family sat down at the table.

[1e7nx0WG]

Why does the sentence "Sidiĝu sur ĉi tiun seĝon!" require the accusative ending, but "La familio sidiĝis ĉe la tablo." does not? They both refer to movement into a sitting position in a specific place.

[salivanto]

Great question. I've written in detail elsewhere and won't repeat myself - but in short -- early speakers didn't use an -n on sentences like "Sidiĝu sur ĉi tiun seĝon!" -- and I think they had logic on their side.

[Benja_Zouras]

I took "sigiĝis" to mean "became seated", so I wrote "the family was seated at the table", but it was marked wrong. I'm not sure exactly why, though.

[Joffysloffy]

I think the difference is between whether the action was on-going or was completed. To me was seated is the result of sidiĝis rather than the action itself; i.e., became seated describes the action of sitting down, while was seated described the action after sitting down.

[mizinamo]

Agreed.

A bit like the difference between "the family was eating" and "the family has eaten".

[Joffysloffy]

Precisely!

[DavidBock9]

I might translate it in English as 'The family seated themselves at the table' or 'The family sat down at the table.'