Me-, me-i, and me-kan

[ausdag]

this dative/accusative principle does not work.

Trying to explain Indonesian grammar in English / Romance language linguistic terms is fraught with difficulty and results in some agreement, but an abundance of exceptions. Even what determines a transitive verb vs an intransitive verb is quite different from English grammatical rules., e.g. bermain guitar (playing guitar) in English is a transitive + object, whereas in Indonesian is cannot be transitive, because it cannot become a passive, and so is therefore expressed as an intransitive + complement.

I have never heard 'mendengarkan' used in its literal sense, which is 'causing somebody to listen'.

In a sense, you could be causing something to be listened to - Saya sedang mendengarkan musik. Direct object is music, so in a sense, I am causing the music to be listened to.

Melihat = see. Melihatkan & melihati are not used.

Both of these forms do exist, but perhaps rarely used.

Merasa = feel, merasakan = intensely feel, merasai is not used.

Merasai means to taste something. In fact, some dictionaries give 4 different uses of merasai but with a locative connotation.

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'.

menciumi means to kiss repeatedly.

So, me-i forms can have either a locative sense, or a frequency sense - repeatedly doing something.

[Hombre de Maiz]

...[melihatkan & melihati]


Both of these forms do exist, but perhaps rarely used.



....

Right, but then memperlihatkan (to show) is not at all unusual.

[Nimbus]

Trying to explain Indonesian grammar in English / Romance language linguistic terms is fraught with difficulty and results in some agreement, but an abundance of exceptions. Even what determines a transitive verb vs an intransitive verb is quite different from English grammatical rules., e.g. bermain guitar (playing guitar) in English is a transitive + object, whereas in Indonesian is cannot be transitive, because it cannot become a passive, and so is therefore expressed as an intransitive + complement.

The difficulty is due to adoption of connotations and additional meanings to the formed word. However, I do not believe that each suffix set lacks a single underlying logic. I think non native learners are better served understanding the core logic, then memorizing the exceptions.

Just a reminder, we're not talking about ber- yet, we're still doing me-, me-i, and me-kan.

In a sense, you could be causing something to be listened to - Saya sedang mendengarkan musik. Direct object is music, so in a sense, I am causing the music to be listened to.

Mendengarkan does not mean causing something to be listened to, the Indonesian word for that is 'memperdengarkan'.

Mendengarkan = listen
Memperdengarkan = to cause something to be listened

Both of these forms do exist, but perhaps rarely used.

Melihati & melihatkan are not standard Indonesian. Malaysian yes, Sumatran perhaps, Indonesian no. Perhaps they still exist in the dictionary, but they are not part of daily use.

It's a bit like British people say they 'hire' a car. Americans understand what that means, but they don't say 'hire', they say 'rent'.

Merasai means to taste something. In fact, some dictionaries give 4 different uses of merasai but with a locative connotation.

Again, 'merasai' is distinctly Malaysian or Sumatran.

menciumi means to kiss repeatedly.

So, me-i forms can have either a locative sense, or a frequency sense - repeatedly doing something.

In addition to the standard indirect object pointer, me-i has other meanings (repetition etc.). However, me-i does not always mean something done repeatedly.

[ausdag]

The difficulty is due to adoption of connotations and additional meanings to the formed word. However, I do not believe that each suffix set lacks a single underlying logic. I think non native learners are better served understanding the core logic, then memorizing the exceptions.

That is true. However, you will find there is probably very good reason why the terms 'dative' and 'accusative' are rarely, if ever, mentioned in reference to Indonesian grammar, particularly in texts directed at non-native learners written by Indonesian grammarians as well as western grammarians - the 'variations on a theme' are far too numerous to the extent they render the underlying logic too vague and meaningless. In German and English it works because it is far more clear-cut.

I did a quick google 'dativ dan akusativ dalam bahasa Indonesia' and interestingly just about every hit was in reference to learning German.
In my 23 years of studying and teaching Indonesian, all the texts I have encountered present me~ verbs in the context of their various connotational subsets -

intransitive me~
pseudo intransitive me~
benefactive ~kan
causative ~kan
locative ~i
repetitive ~i
etc

Just a reminder, we're not talking about ber- yet, we're still doing me-, me-i, and me-kan.

It was just an arbitrary example to illustrate a point.

Mendengarkan does not mean causing something to be listened to, the Indonesian word for that is 'memperdengarkan'.

Which is why I said, 'in a sense'. Literally it is simply a tranisitve verb and must take an object (to listen to...) as opposed to mendengar which is one of the small number of me~ intransitive verbs, to hear - Aku tidak bisa mendengar = I can't hear.

So :

Saya mendengarkan musik = I am listening to music (in a sense I am causing the music to be listened to by me);

Saya sedang memperdengarkan lagu (kepada teman) = I am playing a song (to my friend) (in a sense, I am causing the song to be heard by another person other than myself).

Melihati & melihatkan are not standard Indonesian. Malaysian yes, Sumatran perhaps, Indonesian no. Perhaps they still exist in the dictionary, but they are not part of daily use.

I guess our definition of Standard Indonesian differs.

Standard Indonesian, in the historical sense of the term, and my usage, is not dictated by what is currently used in daily conversation.

Standard Indonesian is the engineered language as prescribed and described by the powers that be in the Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa - Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, and exemplified in works such as Kamus Besar and Kamus Umum. If a word is prescribed and described by this authority, whether it is actually used or not, it is Standard Indnonesian.

What is described by what is used in daily conversation is 'colloquial' Indonesian which includes many frequently and not-so-frequently-used items from Standard Indonsesian plus a whole range of non-standard informal variants and slang.

So if we refer to Kamus Umum under 'lihat' we find, antara lain:

melihati: 1 melihat dng teliti; mengamat-amati; mis lihati baik-baik gambar itu...
melihatkan: 1 melihat (memandang) kpd; memperhatikan; 2. (= memperlihatkan), menunjukkan; ...

Again, 'merasai' is distinctly Malaysian or Sumatran.

PPPB give two separate descriptions:

merasai (under base entry rasa)
and merasai (under base entry rasai)

The former is Standard Indonesian using the me~i affixes, meaning mengecap (makanan dsb);
the latter is marked with an 'M' meaning it is the Malay word you speak of, which can take the ~kan suffix to form merasaikan meaning banyak menderita.

In addition to the standard indirect object pointer, me-i has other meanings (repetition etc.). However, me-i does not always mean something done repeatedly.

That's right, which is why I said it can have a locative sense, or a frequency sence, amongst other things.


Please don't get me wrong. I don't wish to undermine your intent in posting: it is vauable input. But as a non-native learner myself and a teacher of Indonesian, what I'm trying to say is the subsets of the underlying logic are more meaningful to non-native speakers. Indonesian lends itself better to a well set-out breakdown with examples which learners simply have no other choice than to commit to memory which individual verb items belong to which category and the exceptions. Sneddon in his Indonesian Reference Grammar devotes about 40 pages to me~ verbs in their various forms, such is the vast range of variations to the underlying logic.

It's a challenging business trying to make learning Indonesian easy

[Nimbus]

Perhaps I should use 'contemporary' instead of 'standard', as the me-, me-i, and me-kan structures are formal, not colloquial. Colloquial / informal Indonesian would use m/n/ny/ng as a prefix with the suffix -in, like ngerasa & ngerasain.

The dictionary --by necessity-- catalogs all past uses of words. At the turn of the previous century the language used in Indonesia was much closer to the one used today in Malaysia. The two languages are still mutually intelligible for the most part, but they are considerably different. Now, if you google the word 'merasai' you will find that it is used exclusively by Malaysians. It is not wrong, it's just not used today by Indonesians. It is not a word you will find in any contemporary Indonesian publication in probably the last fifty years.

We are discussing the me-i form of the base word 'rasa', so me-rasai (meaning to suffer) is irrelevant. This me-rasai is actually a good example of an archaic dictionary word. I didn't know me-rasai means suffering until today. You will not find Kompas newspaper or Metro TV using me-rasai.

In this particular thread I'm focusing on how the language is used today by Indonesians. I know that my approach is not orthodox; I actually said that this logic came up because I don't like the current textbook approach. While unorthodox (perhaps highly so), I know enough of the language that I can tell if and where the logic works, that I'm not wrong.

Because my method is not academically sanctioned by Indonesian language experts, next time I will put a disclaimer saying that I'm not a linguist and that the method is not textbook. My only qualification in this subject is being a native speaker.

[john madden]

My only qualification in this subject is being a native speaker.

What is the definition of a native speaker? Many (most?) Indonesians seem to speak their "local" language until they start some formal schooling. Would not the level of expertise depend on the extent of education/exposure? Not trying to start an argument - I've often wondered about this.

[Nimbus]

What is the definition of a native speaker? Many (most?) Indonesians seem to speak their "local" language until they start some formal schooling. Would not the level of expertise depend on the extent of education/exposure? Not trying to start an argument - I've often wondered about this.

Well, in my particular case Indonesian (at least the informal Jakartan version) is my native language. While I understand Javanese because it's my ethnicity, it was not a language I was raised in. Indonesian is a language I use every day, and one of two that I learned formally (the other one is English). I also wrote an undergraduate thesis in Indonesian, so my command of the language is more sophisticated than a high school graduate.

[ausdag]

Now, if you google the word 'merasai' you will find that it is used exclusively by Malaysians. It is not wrong, it's just not used today by Indonesians. It is not a word you will find in any contemporary Indonesian publication in probably the last fifty years.

Google doesn't yield many results. You have to be more specific:

Geonawan Mohamad:
'Demikianlah kini kita masih bisa merasai soto Bandung,'
http://www.tempo.co/read/caping/2005/10/24/1108/Soto

http://search.kompas.com/?cx=partner...1&q=merasai&sa=


http://suaramerdeka.com/search/index...1&q=merasai&sa=

Dia pun kembali merasai dingin dan suramnya hidup di balik jeruji besi
http://news.liputan6.com/read/132497...enggu-narkotik

You'll get similar results for melihati and melihatkan

In this particular thread I'm focusing on how the language is used today by Indonesians. I know that my approach is not orthodox; I actually said that this logic came up because I don't like the current textbook approach. While unorthodox (perhaps highly so), I know enough of the language that I can tell if and where the logic works, that I'm not wrong.

You can use any method you like. I'm not saying you have to be orthodox. If there's anyone who like being UN-orthodox, it's me But I am simply arguing that in the end, as you 'tease out a pattern' to borrow your words, you will find yourself reinventing the wheel.

Some Indonesian verb cases that you might like to explore (where English/Romance cases such as dative etc don’t necessarily work):

Agentive,
instrumental,
objective,
benefactive,
incidental,
causative,
intentional

http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C92/C92-4197.pdf

[Nimbus]

Google doesn't yield many results. You have to be more specific:

Geonawan Mohamad:
'Demikianlah kini kita masih bisa merasai soto Bandung,'
http://www.tempo.co/read/caping/2005/10/24/1108/Soto

http://search.kompas.com/?cx=partner...1&q=merasai&sa=


http://suaramerdeka.com/search/index...1&q=merasai&sa=

Dia pun kembali merasai dingin dan suramnya hidup di balik jeruji besi
http://news.liputan6.com/read/132497...enggu-narkotik

You'll get similar results for melihati and melihatkan

This is very interesting. I need to figure out why I don't see these words, so I searched for them on kompas.com (the largest newspaper in Indonesia by far)

Merasa: 757,000 hits
Merasakan: 151,000 hits
Merasai: 10 hits

Melihat: 1,100,100 hits
Memperlihatkan: 111,000
Melihati: 2 hits
Melihatkan: 5 hits

Mendengar: 200,000 hits
Mendengarkan: 94,300 hits
Memperdengarkan: 2,690 hits
Mendengari: 0 hit

You can use any method you like. I'm not saying you have to be orthodox. If there's anyone who like being UN-orthodox, it's me But I am simply arguing that in the end, as you 'tease out a pattern' to borrow your words, you will find yourself reinventing the wheel.

I do intend to invent something, as I don't like the idea that the me- affix alone takes 40 pages to explain. Indonesian is complicated, but I don't think the language is devoid of major patterns.

Some Indonesian verb cases that you might like to explore (where English/Romance cases such as dative etc don’t necessarily work):

Agentive,
instrumental,
objective,
benefactive,
incidental,
causative,
intentional

http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C92/C92-4197.pdf

It is an interesting read, but he is talking about machine translation, which requires much higher precision than humans.

1. I'm not impressed with his table 2: Indonesian Morphological Construction. He lists me-, di-, ber-, me-kan, di-kan, ter-, ter-kan, memper-kan, and terper-kan. He doesn't even list me-i and di-i. What's up with that?
2. One of his examples is "Seseorang memukul paku itu dengan palu itu", where he calls out three cases: agentive, instrumental, and objective. The subject 'seseorang' is agentive, the direct object is instrumental, and the indirect object is objective. He claims that "only one case is required with this verb" (objective: paku itu), which means the other cases (agentive & instrumental) are optional. He coded the concept as |memukul[O(A)(I)]|. The problem is that he uses 'dipukul' as an example to support the mandatory objective, but the coded verb is 'memukul', not 'dipukul'! You don't have to be a linguist to tell that Indonesian 'memukul' is markedly different from 'dipukul'. Perhaps his system treats 'memukul' and 'dipukul' the same for the purpose of machine translation, which means it's not suitable to teach humans.
3. While he uses the terms 'agentive','instrumental', and 'objective', I can substitute them with 'nominative', 'accusative' and 'dative'. The terms that he uses are probably specific to his BIAS system.
4. I see that he classifies me-i as repetitive, even though he fails to list me-i on his table. Me-i is repetitive when the root word is pukul, but it's not repetitive when the root word is terbang. My point is that while me-i sometimes carry the 'repetitive' meaning, it always requires a dative object.

Again, we are still dealing with the me-, me-i, and me-kan affix sets.
- Agentive is another name for subject, which all three forms require due to their active nature.
- Instrumental is another name for accusative object
- Objective is another name for dative object
- Benefactive is incorporated into dative
- Incidental in Indonesian is ter-, which is not me-
- Causative according to the paper is memper-kan, also outside of our current scope
- Intentional according to the paper is memper-i, again also outside of scope

[ausdag]

Well, you certainly digested all that case stuff quickly. Impressive

I'm concerned about your definition of an indirect object. If we are going to talk in English / Latin terms of dative and accusative, the sentence:

Dia memukul paku itu dengan palu

does not contain an indirect object. Similarly your OP example,

Ari sedang menembaki semangka dengan anak panah,

also does not contain an indirect object. As such we cannot say that these are in the dative case (see OP).

the phrase 'dengan palu' and 'dengan anak panah' are prepositional phrases and the second object becomes the direct object of the preposition. See also:
http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/langu...r/g-indob.html

An Indonesian example of dative would be in the following, where one uses me-i and the other me-kan:

Ibu mengirimi kami surat.

Mum sent us a letter. (Dir. Obj = a letter; ind. obj = us)

and

Ibu menjahitkan Siti rok.

Mum sewed Siti a skirt. (Dir obj = a skirt; ind obj = Siti).

So a more accurate wording in your OP would be 'The dative case (where a sentence contains and indirect object) can be expressed in both me-i (locative) AND me-kan (benefactive) structures.

Similarly, the Accusative cases (where the sentence only contains a direct object) can also be expressed through both me-kan and me-i:

Saya membesarkan anak saya di Jakarta. I raised my child in Jakarta.
Saya sedang menulisi kertas. I am writing on the paper.

Now it gets sticky. Take this example:

Dia menandatangani kertas ini. = He signed this paper.

Ostensibly accusative, ie, verb followed by direct object.
But in another sense, dative, if we break it down: Dia (He) menandatangani (applied a signtature to) kertas (the paper). Ostensibly dative.

So which one is it? Accusative (structurally)? Or dative (connotatively)?

The latter is messy and thus we are best to call it accusative, if at all. Even easier if we stick to the 'orthodox' practice of calling it 'locative'.