Are people misusing the ek- verbs?

Question

Very often I see the ek- being used as a complete synonym of "start doing something". But it feels wrong. PIV defines this prefix as

Pref. signifanta, ke la procezo komenciĝas subite, je preciza momento

and proceeds to give examples like ekdormi (fall asleep), ekvidi (to catch sight), ekbruligi (set fire), eksidi (sit down) etc. These are different – instantaneous – actions as opposed to just "start sleeping", "start seeing", "cause to start burning", "start sitting".

Certainly, in other examples this may be indistinguishable or almost so, like ekparoli, but this is no justification to pushing the "start -ing" sense everywhere.

A particular example I have in mind is Mi eklernis Esperanton pasintjare. This feels like a misuse because eklerni refers, according to the above definition, to the "preciza momento" the speaker first opened the book, while this is hardly what they want to say. If the intended meaning is the whole set of processes of making the decision to learn, choosing suitable resources, finishing the first lesson, is this still a ĝusta formulation? Shouldn't it be rather replaced by Mi komencis lerni?

Answer 1

For better or worse, eklerni is a well-established expression. Personally, I've never had a problem with the logic of it. Ek- doesn't always imply suddenness - as with the examples you gave.

One reason to prefer eklerni over komenci lerni is to save syllables. There's also the fact that when you eklernas Esperanton you are still very much a komencanto (and not a komencinto) for a period. That is, you are seen to be starting to learn Esperanto, and not as having started.

For a person who starts learning, then takes a hiatus, then returns, komenci lerni seems a more apt expression. Conversely, if you find out what Esperanto is, then fall into learning it and continue to be involved, eklerni seems apt.

Answer 2

As often occurs in PIV, the definition is a bit narrower than actual usage. Certainly ek- can connote abruptness, but such abruptness isn't necessarily part of the meaning. It's worth noting the that Plena Vortaro (PV), which predates PIV, has as its first definition simply "komenciĝanta ago", and among the usage examples is a quote from Zamenhof, Ekbruligu kandelon ĉar estas jam mallume.

Keep in mind that even PIV includes the idea that we may be talking about actions kun plua daŭro. So I'd say eklerni is a fair translation for "start learning"; it contains the idea that the learning began at some moment during the last year. The only way that wouldn't apply, I imagine, is if you somehow began learning through a really gradual, osmotic process. Subliminal Esperanto lessons, maybe. :-)

Answer 3

From PMEG:

EK = “komenco de ago, subita ago”.

Plej ofte EK montras, ke ago komenciĝas. Ĝi montras la plej unuan momenton de la ago, ofte kun nuanco de subiteco aŭ neatenditeco.

The prefix has to do with beginnings of actions, often sudden, but not always. Hence, there is nothing wrong with Mi eklernis Esperanton pasintjare.

SIDENOTE: PMEG compares eksidi and sidigxi saying that the former is more sudden and quick than the latter.

Answer 4

From the tekstaro:

• ...do kiam li eklernis Esperanton...
• En infanaĝo li eklernis la germanan kaj francan...
• ...ili eklernos la internacian lingvon...

The prefix ek- emphasizes the onset of the action of the verb... http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/eo/colloq/colloq130.html#sec13-1

Answer 5

I think some people do misuse ek- by creating ek-verbs that really don't mean anything tangible. ekflugi meaning to take off in a plane makes perfect sense to me or ekdormi to begin to sleep, but using ek- in front of something like lerni is just unnecessary, as I don't see the importance of specifying "to begin to learn", assuming that's what their going for & it's not just an issue of not really understanding what ek- means. If you wanted to say "I started learning" you could say " mi komencis lerni", so I can't think of a situation where eklerni ever makes sense. An example like ekbruligi is at least unnecessary because the -igi already means "to cause", in this case to "cause to be on fire", so ek is unneeded. Glosbe does list ekvidi as "to spot" or "to notice". I could see using that because to does kind of imply to begin to see something.

Answer 6

At least in Polish and Russian, but perhaps in many others (all?) Slavic languages, there is a profound classification to perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incompleted action) verbs. These are called aspects (of verb). To model those two aspects Z invented ek- and -adi.

Let's take two verbs: fari and bezoni, the first has a completed action character (either something is done or not), while the second has an incompleted action character (you can't say, when a need is done).

How these are related to verb tenses? Because nothing is completed while still in progress, you have only forms without pre- or postsuffix, but for other tenses and aspects you have the following in theory:

perfect aspect

• present: —
• preterite (past): faris / ekbezonis
• future: faros / ekbezonos

imperfect aspect

• present: faras / bezonas
• preterite (past): faradis / bezonis
• future: farados / bezonos

Was it, that this was never emphasized or pushed enough? Was it lost, when KaBe simplified the verb usage? I don't know, but surely nobody adds ek- or -adi in every second verb.

Esperanto nowdays is (and has been so for a good time) considered aspect-less language. This may well explain, why many view ek- as a synonym for "to begin".