"Mi estas farigonta tiun medikamenton analizita" ?

nornen:Wouldn't a simple causative with -ig- suffice?

Mi analizigos tiun medikamenton.

From a syntactic point of view, it is unclear whether medikamenton is the agent or patient of analizi (which is always the case in Esperanto with causatives of transitive verbs), but from a semantic point of view it should be obvious.

I agree with this. Sudanglo's idea of submeti also seems successful. We shouldn't worry about trying to translate the sentence exactly. There are a lot of possible ways of preserving the meaning. I would advise against using lots of compound verbs here in an attempt to mimic the English.

Tempodivalse:

nornen:Wouldn't a simple causative with -ig- suffice?

Mi analizigos tiun medikamenton.

From a syntactic point of view, it is unclear whether medikamenton is the agent or patient of analizi (which is always the case in Esperanto with causatives of transitive verbs), but from a semantic point of view it should be obvious.

I agree with this. Sudanglo's idea of submeti also seems successful. We shouldn't worry about trying to translate the sentence exactly. There are a lot of possible ways of preserving the meaning. I would advise against using lots of compound verbs here in an attempt to mimic the English.

The reason I went with "igi iun" is that, to me, one of the main points of the English sentence is that "I" will not be doing it. To have something done, in this sense anyway, means to cause (order/ask/hire) someone else to do that thing. I don't know if that's clear in Esperanto's causative.

Zamenhof used "igi" and the remarks about its use in the PIV and PMEG are both interesting reading.

In the end, I chose "Mi igos iun analizi tiun medikamenton" because the participle was the least important thing to translate, and the English sentences "I'll have this medicine analyzed" and "I'll have someone analyze this medicine" are virtually identical in meaning.

jefusan:The reason I went with "igi iun" is that, to me, one of the main points of the English sentence is that "I" will not be doing it. To have something done, in this sense anyway, means to cause (order/ask/hire) someone else to do that thing. I don't know if that's clear in Esperanto's causative.

Zamenhof used "igi" and the remarks about its use in the PIV and PMEG are both interesting reading.

In the end, I chose "Mi igos iun analizi tiun medikamenton" because the participle was the least important thing to translate, and the English sentences "I'll have this medicine analyzed" and "I'll have someone analyze this medicine" are virtually identical in meaning.

Fair enough. I think any translation that doesn't sound ponderous/contrived and gets the message across is fine. The idea of a causative on a transitive root (analiz-ig-i) attracted me though - it's very concise and underutilised. In spontaneous speech though, I might be more likely to say something similar to what you proposed.

Tempodivalse:The idea of a causative on a transitive root (analiz-ig-i) attracted me though - it's very concise and underutilised.

I agree, though I think the -ig- suffix can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. It's funny — people always complain about the accusative, which seems a simple enough concept (even when I forget to use it) — but trying to remember which verbs are default transitive and which default intransitive is my Achilles kalkano.

the English sentences "I'll have this medicine analyzed" and "I'll have someone analyze this medicine" are virtually identical in meaning.

Aren't the uses different?

The first is used when the issue of who will perform the analysis is not relevant - in this case an appropriate professional.

The second is used when the speaker won't do it himself, but is aware of someone they might ask to do it.

Compare:

I'm going to get my eyes tested.

I'll have someone clean the room for you immediately.

sudanglo:

the English sentences "I'll have this medicine analyzed" and "I'll have someone analyze this medicine" are virtually identical in meaning.

Aren't the uses different?

The first is used when the issue of who will perform the analysis is not relevant - in this case an appropriate professional.

The second is used when the speaker won't do it himself, but is aware of someone they might ask to do it.

I would use the second sentence in situations where I might end up doing the analyzing but I'm not promising that I will do it. Which is, again, a case where who does it is not relevant, only the commitment to have it done.

sudanglo:

the English sentences "I'll have this medicine analyzed" and "I'll have someone analyze this medicine" are virtually identical in meaning.

Aren't the uses different?

The first is used when the issue of who will perform the analysis is not relevant - in this case an appropriate professional.

The second is used when the speaker won't do it himself, but is aware of someone they might ask to do it.

Compare:

I'm going to get my eyes tested.

I'll have someone clean the room for you immediately.

I wouldn't think there's a difference. When I say I'll have someone do something, I'm not saying I know who's going to do it. That's the whole point of using the word "someone," right? And in both of the first cases, I am confidently stating that someone is going to do it, even if I don't have that person picked out.

Roch:I'll get that medecine analyzed... Difficulties come from the english, methinks

Mi igos tiun medikamenton analizitan!

This reads like "I'll cause that analyzed medicine" rather than "I'll get that medicine analyzed" to me.

Perhaps , "Mi igos tiun medikamenton analizita"