Postitused: 7
Keel: English
Frakseno (Näita profiili) 20. september 2007 2:37.11
These accusatives are vexing.
Frakseno (Näita profiili) 20. september 2007 3:16.25
Each greeting is actually a fragment of a complete idea which is still configured as though it were being presented within a complete idea.
T0dd (Näita profiili) 20. september 2007 3:46.27
Frakseno (Näita profiili) 30. september 2007 3:30.53
Now I find that the accusative appears elsewhere, in other guises.
If I am understanding correctly, the accusative -n appears in the following ways:
1. To denote the direct object of the sentence:
Sxi logxas libron.
2. To indicate motion towards something:
Li kuris en la cxambron.
3. To take the place of a preposition:
Pagu la mangxon.
It is the third usage which now torments me. This usage seems to receive the least attention in explanatory materials. It might help me to hear others share their understanding of this usage. Can anyone help with this?
awake (Näita profiili) 30. september 2007 14:17.20
Frakseno:This is not explained as well because it's the least used in practice. It's mostly used for expressions of time and for days/dates.
3. To take the place of a preposition:
Pagu la mangxon.
It is the third usage which now torments me. This usage seems to receive the least attention in explanatory materials. It might help me to hear others share their understanding of this usage. Can anyone help with this?
Li venis lundon = he came on monday
Ni manĝos la sesan (horon) = We will eat at the sixth (hour)
However, it is often better to use a preposition in such situations.
For example, consider the sentence
Li helpos ilin lundon = He will help them on Monday.
Having two accusatives (one the direct object, the other replacing a preposition) can be confusing. So it's better to not replace the preposition when doing so could be confusing.
Li helpos ilin je lundo. = He will help them on Monday.
similarly you might say
Mi atendis lin dum du tagoj or Mi atendis lin du tagojn.
both of which mean, I waited for him for (during) 2 days
---------------------------------------
The other places where this is commonly used is when you are indicating measure or price.
La monto estas alta je 1000 metroj. = the mountain is high (by an amount of) 1000 meters.
Again je can be replaced
La monto estas 1000 metrojn alta.
And of course, another way you could say is to verbify alta
La monto altas 1000 metrojn.
T0dd (Näita profiili) 1. oktoober 2007 1:52.58
Frakseno:You can, if you prefer, think of the first and second usages as special cases of the third.
1. To denote the direct object of the sentence:
Sxi logxas libron.
2. To indicate motion towards something:
Li kuris en la cxambron.
3. To take the place of a preposition:
Pagu la mangxon.
It is the third usage which now torments me.
For example, "Li kuris en la ĉambron" is just another way of saying "Li kuris AL en la ĉambron." So the so-called "accusative of direction" is just a case of using the accusative to replace the preposition "al".
In the case of "Ŝi legas libron" (loĝas?), you could, in fact, use the generic preposition "je". Since "je" is generic, it's meaning is best described as "in the relation you'd expect". So, "Ŝi legas je libro" would mean, "She's reading, in the relation you'd expect, a book." Weird as that sounds, it's conceptually equivalent to saying she's reading a book. The truth is, "je" is almost never used this way, but it could be. The grammar and semantics of Esperanto permit it. Given that, you can think of the ordinary use of the accusative to indicate a direct object as a replacement for the preposition "je".
I grant you, that explanation, especially the last bit, is more obscure than the basic rules for using the accusative. But if you have the kind of mind that finds the three uses of the accusative "untidy," then maybe this makes it tidier.
Frakseno (Näita profiili) 1. oktoober 2007 8:09.32
And T0dd, as regards my first example sentence, I can either
1. say that I was intentionally expressing the concept that the "Sxi" in question is so involved in her reading that she "lives in" the book.
or...
2. Admit that I typed "logxas" when I actually meant "legas."
In the interest of frankness, I think I will own up to number 2.