Me-, me-i, and me-kan

[Nimbus]

What ..? Gak bisa dong ! "aku kabarkan kedatangannya" means : I will let you know about her/his arrival (another person than the 2 of them).

If he wants to let her know about his arrival, he will need to say "kedatanganku".

You're right!

It feels awkward to me to say 'ku' twice in such a short sentence, but it is in fact the correct grammar.

[Nimbus]

Many (most?) Me-verbs are transitive. Or do you mean specifically in relation to those base words that can take all three forms - me~, me-kan, and me-i?

I was pondering the same thing, I went with transitive vs intransitive to emphasize the contrast, to make it easier to remember. To be precise, me-i and me-kan words are absolute transitives while me- ones are intransitives that can take objects.

Let's take the word 'gambar'. I can say "Lina sedang menggambar", no object, and it doesn't sound strange. I can also say "Lina sedang menggambar bunga" and be correct. However, I can not say "Lina sedang menggambari" or "Lina sedang menggambarkan" without any object.

Perhaps I should say that me- words are intransitives or optional transitives.

To add: I think we often avoid using me-i and me-kan except when we need to specifically point the object as direct or indirect. It's perfectly correct to say "Alex melukiskan pemandangan", but in practice I would often say "Alex melukis pemandangan" because people paint a vista on something, we don't generally paint on a vista. As such, the -kan suffix becomes redundant.

[naughtygab]

rabbit should love this discussion ....

[teena]

[QUOTE=john madden;279901]I am, unfortunately, able to confirm this.[/QUOTE

yes,,,so you are John whom I meniduri

[ricky_id]

Oops I didn't read anything, time to menidurkan myself.

[Babi Ngepet]

More posts like this Injun, thank you

[ausdag]

I was pondering the same thing, I went with transitive vs intransitive to emphasize the contrast, to make it easier to remember. To be precise, me-i and me-kan words are absolute transitives while me- ones are intransitives that can take objects.

Let's take the word 'gambar'. I can say "Lina sedang menggambar", no object, and it doesn't sound strange. I can also say "Lina sedang menggambar bunga" and be correct. However, I can not say "Lina sedang menggambari" or "Lina sedang menggambarkan" without any object.

Perhaps I should say that me- words are intransitives or optional transitives.

Another term is 'pseudo-intransitive' which can be applied to Indonesian verbs such as 'melukis', 'menggambar', etc, which, as you say can take objects. They look like intransitive verbs but in reality there is a definite object, but because it is understood, it is not uttered - Dia sedang membaca (buku).

Pseudo-intransitives also occur in English - I am reading, I am drawing.

There are, however a small number of me~ verbs which are definitely intransitive - menangis, mendarat, mengering etc

To add: I think we often avoid using me-i and me-kan except when we need to specifically point the object as direct or indirect. It's perfectly correct to say "Alex melukiskan pemandangan", but in practice I would often say "Alex melukis pemandangan" because people paint a vista on something, we don't generally paint on a vista. As such, the -kan suffix becomes redundant.

Yes, some me-kan verbs have an optional ~kan where the ~kan suffix is required merely to form a complete and correct verb. Others require ~kan when we need to distinguish between whether something is done in a pseudo-intransitive manner:
Saya sedang menulis (surat); I am writing (a letter)

or the location of the action:
Saya sedang menulisi kertas. I am writing on the paper.

or for the benefit of someone else:

Saya sedang menuliskan dia surat. I am writing a letter for him (ie on his behalf).

add to this mix other uses of me-kan constructs such as causative ~kan etc

[Hombre de Maiz]

To complicate things a bit, notice in the example of gambar that menggambar means to draw while menggambarkan can have a meaning closer to to describe. Indonesian is not as simple or as straight forward as people make it out to be, that's for sure.

[ausdag]

To complicate things a bit, notice in the example of gambar that menggambar means to draw while menggambarkan can have a meaning closer to to describe. Indonesian is not as simple or as straight forward as people make it out to be, that's for sure.

Yes. Similarly, the me-i form can have various effects too:

Dia memukul anaknya. He hit his child.

Dia memukulkan tangangnya pada tembok. He hit the wall with his hand (lit. he used his hand to hit the wall).

Dia memukuli saya sampai saya pingsan. He hit me repeatedly until I blacked out.

[Nimbus]

Now to touch a little bit on known exceptions:

For the word 'dengar'(hear, listen) this dative/accusative principle does not work. The word 'mendengar' (or simply 'dengar') means 'hear' while 'mendengarkan' means 'listen'. I have never heard 'mendengarkan' used in its literal sense, which is 'causing somebody to listen'. Nobody uses 'mendengari'.

Why?

I think this is because 'dengar' is a sensory word, where the direction of the action is toward the subject rather than the object.

Melihat = see. Melihatkan & melihati are not used.
Merasa = feel, merasakan = intensely feel, merasai is not used.
Mencium = smell or kiss, menciumkan = kiss something to, menciumi = kiss.

Why is 'cium' different? Because it's the Indonesian word for both 'smell' and 'kiss'.