I learnt in my last thread 'past continuous + simple past in Esperanto' that it isn't always neccesary to give additional morphological information if the meaning of a phrase has already been clarified by those words forming the phrase.

Thinking about that, I came up with the idea that this could work with direct object nouns, too.

For example:
'Mi vidas ruĝan pilko.' (= 'I see a red ball.' )
'ruĝan' already implies that 'pilko' is a direct object.

Changing word orders:
'Ruĝan pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko ruĝan vidas mi.'

Having an adjective (ruĝan) describing the object, it should be clear that 'pilko' must be a direct obejct and that it isn't part of the subject.

Dropping the adjective:
'Pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko vidas mi.'

Because every object personal pronoun is marked by 'n' 'mi' can't be an object. Thus 'pilko' has to be a direct object.

I did some research about that in the internet. I read that some children growing up with Esperanto drop the accusative marker "n" at object nouns and tend to use subject-verb-object constructions. [Nativization processes in L1 Esperanto, Benjamin K. Bergen] This behaviour is explained as a nativization process of Esperanto based on the children's other native language. An other theory is that Esperanto experiences a similar creolization prozess if it is a native language as it was observed in other creol languages.

But if the other native language does have such object-marking construction e.g. Finish the children also use such construction in Esperanto. [Native Esperanto as a Test Case for Natural Language, Jouko Lindstedt]

I think that it could be possible that some Esperanto construction could contain too much morphological redudancy, anyhow, I don't want to change Esperanto and even if I wanted I couldn't do so.

Nevertheless, I am interested in your opinions about that.

Ganove:(...) I came up with the idea that this could work with direct object nouns, too.

For example:
'Mi vidas ruĝan pilko.' (= 'I see a red ball.' )
'ruĝan' already implies that 'pilko' is a direct object.

Mi pentras ruĝan domon ne samas al Mi pentras ruĝa dumon. Diveni kial?

(...)Dropping the adjective:
'Pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko vidas mi.'
Because every object personal pronoun is marked by 'n' 'mi' can't be an object. Thus 'pilko' has to be a direct object.

Kontraŭa ekzemplo: Spiono enketas pri mi kaj, dum mia foriro, kaŝis kameraon en unu el miaj pilkoj ruĝaj. Dum mi estas ludanta, pilko vidas min.

I think that it could be possible that some Esperanto construction could contain too much morphological redudancy, anyhow, I don't want to change Esperanto and even if I wanted I couldn't do so.

Some "idoj" tried. As I showed you before, there's no way to get rid of the accusative case without constraining the word orders. If you take a look at my example with "pentras", you'll also see that that letter N can give some useful information.

Additionally to the arguments by Sbgodin:

Redundancy is no bad thing, especially not in a language whose speakers are not native and come from all over the world.

And from the point of view of learning facility, which rules look easier to you:

1. The direct object is marked by -n if this is possible morphologically.

or

1. The direct object is marked by -n if this is possible morphologically.
2. Except if there is an adjective and the DO is a noun.
3. Except if the subject or object is a pronoun.
4. ...

There are two things that prevent the "streamlining" described in the OP from working, and they are apposition and predication. Here's an example of appositional ambiguity in that accusative-free regime:

Ni la homoj atendas.

Does this mean "we are waiting for the people" or "we, the people, are waiting" ?

And here's an example of predicative ambiguity in that particular accusative-free regime:

Mi tenas la ruĝan pilko.

Does this mean "I'm holding the red ball" or "I'm keeping the red thing (as a) a ball" ?

Another problem stems from periphrastic verbs, of which the following is an example:

Ĝi estis manĝanta animalo.

Does this mean "it was eating an animal" or "it was an eating animal" ?

For what it's worth, I think the optimal IAL would be SVO with no compulsory accusative case, but we shouldn't lose sight of the advantages the thing offers us in Esperanto.

Sbgodin:

Ganove:(...) I came up with the idea that this could work with direct object nouns, too.

For example:
'Mi vidas rugan pilko.' (= 'I see a red ball.' )
'rugan' already implies that 'pilko' is a direct object.

Mi pentras rugan domon ne samas al Mi pentras ruga dumon. Diveni kial?

You are right but Mi pentras rugan domon has the same meaning as Mi pentras rugan domo it's just about object nouns every other accusative marking is neccesary if the word orders should not be constrained.

Sbgodin:

(...)Dropping the adjective:
'Pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko vidas mi.'
Because every object personal pronoun is marked by 'n' 'mi' can't be an object. Thus 'pilko' has to be a direct object.

Kontraua ekzemplo: Spiono enketas pri mi kaj, dum mia foriro, kasis kameraon en unu el miaj pilkoj rugaj. Dum mi estas ludanta, pilko vidas min.

Same explenation here as above. If you add an 'n' at personal pronouns it changes to an object pronoun but it's not about pronouns but about nouns.

Sbgodin:

I think that it could be possible that some Esperanto construction could contain too much morphological redudancy, anyhow, I don't want to change Esperanto and even if I wanted I couldn't do so.

Some "idoj" tried. As I showed you before, there's no way to get rid of the accusative case without constraining the word orders. If you take a look at my example with "pentras", you'll also see that that letter N can give some useful information.

It has contra-productive effects if one tries to change a spoken language. Doing so rather irritates its speakers and 'Ido' is a good example for that. The changes were well-intentioned but the problem was to convince those speakers who learnt the old rules to learn the new rules. I guess everybody would get annoyed if the language you want to learn always changes its grammatical pattern. That's one of the reason why Esperanto has more speakers as Ido.

Even if you just want to change the spelling of a language it irritates its speakers. The German language is a good example for that.

Kirilo81:Additionally to the arguments by Sbgodin:

Redundancy is no bad thing, especially not in a language whose speakers are not native and come from all over the world.

And from the point of view of learning facility, which rules look easier to you:

1. The direct object is marked by -n if this is possible morphologically.

or

1. The direct object is marked by -n if this is possible morphologically.
2. Except if there is an adjective and the DO is a noun.
3. Except if the subject or object is a pronoun.
4. ...

I thought about:
1st every accusative adjective is marked by 'n'.
2nd every accusative prounun is derived by the subject which an 'n' is tagged at.

That's it.

Esperanto has its irregularities, too:
1st:

Sbgodin:Spiono enketas pri mi[...]

'pri' is part of the object but the other parts of the object are in nominative case. Obviously 'pri' already indicates an object thus it isn't neccesary anymore to mark the other parts of the object. And this pattern fits to almost every other prepositional object.
Wouldn't it be more regular and containing of more redundancy if every part of prepositional objects were marked as direct object, too?

Of course there are exceptions as in 'La kato saltis sur tablon.'. Here the 'n' is neccesary if you want to say 'The cat jumps to a table.' otherwise it would be 'The cat jumps on a table.'. Anyhow, I guess context would close this ambiguity so you could either regularly drop every 'n' after prepostion or regularly add an 'n' at every part of the prepostional object.

Rule: The direct object is marked by 'n'.
Exception: If the object is introduced by a preposition the direct object is not marked by 'n'.
Exception to the exception: If the object is introduced by a preposition and if the preposition indicates a direction the direct object is marked by 'n'.

2nd:
'Mi vidas la pilkon.'
Regularly it should be 'Mi vidas lan pilkon.' as 'la' is part of the object, too.

Rule: The direct object is marked by 'n'.
Exception: Definite article 'la' it is not marked by 'n' if it is part of the object.

I guess there are more exception but that's not the point.

Roberto12:There are two things that prevent the "streamlining" described in the OP from working, and they are apposition and predication. Here's an example of appositional ambiguity in that accusative-free regime:

Ni la homoj atendas.

Does this mean "we are waiting for the people" or "we, the people, are waiting" ?

And here's an example of predicative ambiguity in that particular accusative-free regime:

Mi tenas la rugan pilko.

Does this mean "I'm holding the red ball" or "I'm keeping the red thing (as a) a ball" ?

Another problem stems from periphrastic verbs, of which the following is an example:

Gi estis manganta animalo.

Does this mean "it was eating an animal" or "it was an eating animal" ?

For what it's worth, I think the optimal IAL would be SVO with no compulsory accusative case, but we shouldn't lose sight of the advantages the thing offers us in Esperanto.

I guess this ambiguity is caused by the free worder order. But normally context closes this ambiguity.

Well, I just reflected about Esperanto but I didn't consider everything as I am still a beginner.
But that's no problem, anyhow, I learn the Esperanto grammar as everybody uses it.

Nevertheless, I was curious about what would happen if I drop the 'n' and if it would be still understandable.

Ganove:I thought about:
1st every accusative adjective is marked by 'n'.
2nd every accusative prounun is derived by the subject which an 'n' is tagged at.

That's it.

That won't suffice. What would you do with sentences containg two possible agents like Viro + ĉasas + leono? You would have to constrain the word order for this cases and introduce by this new rules and exceptions.

BTW: Do you know any language marking the case with the adjective but not with the noun?

Ganove:Esperanto has its irregularities, too:
1st:
Wouldn't it be more regular and containing of more redundancy if every part of prepositional objects were marked as direct object, too?

[snip]

Rule: The direct object is marked by 'n'.
Exception: If the object is introduced by a preposition the direct object is not marked by 'n'.
Exception to the exception: If the object is introduced by a preposition and if the preposition indicates a direction the direct object is marked by 'n'.

A prepostional phrase is not a direct object. Otherwise the prepostion wouldn't be needed.
For historical reasons many (not all, e.g. Albanian) European languages combine prepositions with case forms, but the latter are arbitrary and without function; nothing you should integrate into an IAL.

Ganove:2nd:
'Mi vidas la pilkon.'
Regularly it should be 'Mi vidas lan pilkon.' as 'la' is part of the object, too.

Rule: The direct object is marked by 'n'.
Exception: Definite article 'la' it is not marked by 'n' if it is part of the object.

Again: There is no irregularity, unless you postulate arbitrary principles like "an article should behave like an adjective". The article is not an adjective nor a pronoun, and I know of no language, where the article(s) behave(s) like the adjectives.

Ganove:I guess this ambiguity is caused by the free worder order. But normally context closes this ambiguity.

As I said, context is not always reliable, especially as it consists not only of what one has said, but also of the common knowledge of the speech act participants. A speaker from Iceland and a hearer from Zimbabwe having a conversation in Esperanto surely have a smaller common ground together than in their native communities and can be glad that the language makes it easy to be explicite.

Ganove:I learnt in my last thread 'past continuous + simple past in Esperanto' that it isn't always neccesary to give additional morphological information if the meaning of a phrase has already been clarified by those words forming the phrase.

Thinking about that, I came up with the idea that this could work with direct object nouns, too.

For example:
'Mi vidas ruĝan pilko.' (= 'I see a red ball.' )
'ruĝan' already implies that 'pilko' is a direct object.

Changing word orders:
'Ruĝan pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko ruĝan vidas mi.'

Having an adjective (ruĝan) describing the object, it should be clear that 'pilko' must be a direct obejct and that it isn't part of the subject.

Dropping the adjective:
'Pilko mi vidas.'
'Pilko vidas mi.'

Because every object personal pronoun is marked by 'n' 'mi' can't be an object. Thus 'pilko' has to be a direct object.

I did some research about that in the internet. I read that some children growing up with Esperanto drop the accusative marker "n" at object nouns and tend to use subject-verb-object constructions. [Nativization processes in L1 Esperanto, Benjamin K. Bergen] This behaviour is explained as a nativization process of Esperanto based on the children's other native language. An other theory is that Esperanto experiences a similar creolization prozess if it is a native language as it was observed in other creol languages.

But if the other native language does have such object-marking construction e.g. Finish the children also use such construction in Esperanto. [Native Esperanto as a Test Case for Natural Language, Jouko Lindstedt]

I think that it could be possible that some Esperanto construction could contain too much morphological redudancy, anyhow, I don't want to change Esperanto and even if I wanted I couldn't do so.

Nevertheless, I am interested in your opinions about that.

Pilko couldn't be the direct object because it's not in the accusative. The sentence is ungrammatical. It should be Pilkon vidas mi. The "redundancy" keeps things consistent and inambiguous.

Ganove:...

Iĝu granda esperanta verkisto kaj allogu ĉiujn esperantistojn, por ke ili uzu la lingvon viamaniere. Tio estas la sola eblo, ke la lingvo tiagrade ŝanĝiĝu. Ĝis tiu tempo estas sensence paroli pri tiuj ĉi mispenoj. Ni ne ĉesos paroli nian karan Esperanton nur tial, ke vi volas alie.

Admin: Please translate your message into English or it will be deleted. Thanks.

Sorry, esperanto is more spontaneous to me:

Broken English crude translation:

Become a great Esperanto writer and lure all the esperantists so that they will start using Esperanto your way. This is the only possibility for the language to change so much. Up to this distant moment in the future there is no sense to discuss those ill efforts. We (the esperantists) will not stop using our precious language our way because you want it to be done some other way.