I have a question !

KIEN IRAS LA VIRO?

LA VIRO IRAS AL LA DOMO
LA VIRO IRAS ĜIS LA DOMO
LA VIRO IRAS EN LA DOMON

Why don't we add " n " in the sentences that included AL and ĜIS?. Because the question signifies the direction ( to where ? ) so I think in any cases , " n " is added.

Thanks.

Al and Ĝis indicate movement of one type, so the -n- is not needed. but EN can mean movement of two diferent types. For example:

La viro iras en la domo - The man walks in the house (in this case he's inside the house aready, and might be simply walking in circles, or from room to room)

La viro iras en la domon - The man walks into the house (in this case he's walking from outside, into the house)

This is not just a feature present with "EN" but also occurs with "ANTAŬ" "SUR" "SUB" and a few others

For example:
Li saltas sur la lito - Hes jumping on the bed (in this case he's already on the bed, and is just jumping up and down)
Li saltas sur la liton - He jumps onto the bed (in this case he jumps from the floor, or some other location, onto the bed)

Evildela's conclusion is correct but this "movement of two types" thing is needlessly complicated.

Essentially the rule is this:

If the preposition inherently shows movement in a direction, you don't use -n with that preposition, ever. (al and ĝis are examples of this. Another example is el).

If another preposition does not show movement (like "en" - Mi estas en mia domo does not show any movement), then we can add -n to the word after the preposition to add a sense of movement.

Therefore, when we say "Mi iras en mia domo", we are sort of saying that there is no movement. Or more precisely, there is movement but not from one place to another (I am staying within my house, I am walking around within my house) so we don't use -n. To add movement in a direction, you add -n. "Mi iras en mian domon", I go into my house.

Essentially preposition plus n turns "in" into "into", "on" to "onto", etc., so you can see that English makes this distinction as well.

But there is no form of "al" that doesn't show some kind of movement because this is in the inherent meaning of the preposition, so we never use -n with "al".

Or you could say all uses of 'n' add meaning (not just when used for direction). No point in adding meaning that is already present.

To say al la domon would be a bit like saying al al la domo

Maybe a case could be argued for saying li formarŝis al la domon to emphasize that he reached it, not just walked off in that direction.

That however would be experimental usage and controversial.

Edit: quote from Zamenhof al ordinare montras nur la celadon al iu loko, dum la akuz. povas enhavi en si ankaŭ la atingon de la celo.» (Z.).

I think it is just left to common sense when using 'al' as to whether the goal is reached.

It would be strange to say Ĉu vi iris al la kongreso with the meaning of only direction.

Evildela:Al and Ĝis indicate movement of one type, so the -n- is not needed. but EN can mean movement of two diferent types. For example:

La viro iras en la domo - The man walks in the house (in this case he's inside the house aready, and might be simply walking in circles, or from room to room)

La viro iras en la domon - The man walks into the house (in this case he's walking from outside, into the house)

This is not just a feature present with "EN" but also occurs with "ANTAŬ" "SUR" "SUB" and a few others

For example:
Li saltas sur la lito - Hes jumping on the bed (in this case he's already on the bed, and is just jumping up and down)
Li saltas sur la liton - He jumps onto the bed (in this case he jumps from the floor, or some other location, onto the bed)

Thank you for your explanation.

erinja:Evildela's conclusion is correct but this "movement of two types" thing is needlessly complicated.

Essentially the rule is this:

If the preposition inherently shows movement in a direction, you don't use -n with that preposition, ever. (al and ĝis are examples of this. Another example is el).

If another preposition does not show movement (like "en" - Mi estas en mia domo does not show any movement), then we can add -n to the word after the preposition to add a sense of movement.

Therefore, when we say "Mi iras en mia domo", we are sort of saying that there is no movement. Or more precisely, there is movement but not from one place to another (I am staying within my house, I am walking around within my house) so we don't use -n. To add movement in a direction, you add -n. "Mi iras en mian domon", I go into my house.

Essentially preposition plus n turns "in" into "into", "on" to "onto", etc., so you can see that English makes this distinction as well.

But there is no form of "al" that doesn't show some kind of movement because this is in the inherent meaning of the preposition, so we never use -n with "al".

It is clear to me! Thank you. The reason why I felt confused before is the question has " n" ( KIEN....?) while the answer doesn't include " n "( ĜIS/AL..). Then my eyes looked and I thought it did not give me the logical feeling when the demand and the response did not suit together. I meant just feeling, emotion when I first looked at it. Thanks again!

sudanglo:Or you could say all uses of 'n' add meaning (not just when used for direction). No point in adding meaning that is already present.

To say al la domon would be a bit like saying al al la domo

Maybe a case could be argued for saying li formarŝis al la domon to emphasize that he reached it, not just walked off in that direction.

That however would be experimental usage and controversial.

Edit: quote from Zamenhof al ordinare montras nur la celadon al iu loko, dum la akuz. povas enhavi en si ankaŭ la atingon de la celo.» (Z.).

I think it is just left to common sense when using 'al' as to whether the goal is reached.

It would be strange to say Ĉu vi iris al la kongreso with the meaning of only direction.

Admittedly, Esperanto is flexible that makes me get a headache sometimes