去目錄頁
回应

Preposition: Na

从 BoriQa, 2013年6月28日

讯息： 32

语言: English

Tempodivalse (显示个人资料) 2013年6月28日下午6:11:44

marcuscf:
Tempodivalse:I advise against relying on SVO for such cases, because word order (by itself) should play no role in sentence syntax.
Maybe in another language, but in Esperanto word order does have meaning, with e.g. esti, iĝi, fariĝi, ŝajni, aspekti, and when none of the elements can take the accusative ending (-om, multe, ambaŭ, proper names, book titles, ke-subfrazoj, etc.). It's not a single remaining case that can be solved with a new preposition and then Esperanto will have 100%-free word order, there are several other cases.
Fair enough, I should have not universalised that claim. I do stand by my general assertion, though. Wherever possible, the subject and object should be identifiable not just via word order. This is easy with proper names, as I've already suggested. In cases like where both subject and object have "-om da", it's probably not a bad idea to replace one with "-oma", et cetera. With esti and iĝi this is more difficult, especially when the relationship is not reciprocal ("Pensi estas ekzisti" is not the same as "Ekzisti estas pensi" ).

tommjames (显示个人资料) 2013年6月28日下午7:15:22

BoriQa:Can "je" be a valid preposition in this context?
It can be yes, and there's nothing at all wrong with it, but using "je" is about as pointless as using "na" so I would suggest you don't bother with it. It's extremely rare for these ambiguities to arise where both subject and object cannot take the accusative ending, and when they do it's quite easily resolved through word order.

Do yourself a favour and speak real Esperanto. Shun "na" and avoid the temptation to use "je" when it simply isn't needed.

hiyayaywhopee (显示个人资料) 2013年6月28日下午11:48:36

Whoa, what's with all the na hate? I picked it up using the preposition from other Esperantists and only afterward learned that it's unofficial and reviled by a large chunk of Esperantujo. I'm always understood when I use it, though, and it comes out of my mouth without thinking too much about The Battle for Na. I guess I don't really have a sound well-thought-out argument for its usage, but I use it and I've never been misunderstood because of it, and I only avoid it in situations where my Esperanto has to be 100% unobjectionable to everyone (or when I'm trapped in the occasional regrettable conversation with an Esperantist who cares more about picking apart my grammar than what I'm actually saying).

Chainy (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午12:18:42

"Na" sounds a bit weird to me. Esperanto clearly works perfectly well without it, so I think it's better to stick with the standard form of the language.

Bruso (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午12:25:52

If you really, really, really want to stress the accusative, why not throw in some extra words? To use erinja's earlier sentences:

"Mi legis la libron Gerda malaperis".
"Mi vidis la viron John Smith"

BoriQa (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午1:09:16

Wow! Many interesting points of view.

I can see there are some mixed feelings regarding the "je", "na" and using plain SVO word order without either preposition.

In my Esperanto studies I do want to learn to use the accusative case well and want my sentences to be order independent (SVO=OVS=VSO=SOV...). I do not want to rely on SVO for meaning.

I think I will stick to the use of "je" (or "na", minding it's unofficiality), while trying to avoid abusing de "je" use.

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

noelekim (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午4:18:42

marcuscf:
Tempodivalse:I advise against relying on SVO for such cases, because word order (by itself) should play no role in sentence syntax.
In Esperanto word order does have meaning, with e.g. esti, iĝi, fariĝi, ŝajni, aspekti, and when none of the elements can take the accusative ending (-om, multe, ambaŭ, proper names, book titles, ke-subfrazoj, etc.)...
Good point. Libera tute en Esperanto vortordo estas ne la.

patrik (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午6:10:10

No matter what we say here in this thread, one thing stands: in contradiction to all our critics, we Esperantists took in the logic of the accusative so deeply that another accusative marker emerged.

RiotNrrd (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午6:31:24

patrik:No matter what we say here in this thread, one thing stands: in contradiction to all our critics, we Esperantists took in the logic of the accusative so deeply that another accusative marker emerged.
I hadn't really thought of it that way, but you're right. The one feature of Esperanto that is (almost) universally hated by beginners seems so important later on that people have generated an entirely unnecessary way to express it. One that the experienced Esperantists say not to even bother with.

Beginners: take it from the people who've been at it a while: you DON'T need to mark the accusative with "na", EVER. You get a free pass on this one! It's got to be the easiest (unofficial) rule concerning the accusative case in the entire language.

Question: When should I use "na" to mark the accusative case?
Answer: Never. No, not even in [INSERT CONTRIVED EXAMPLE HERE].

Simple rules are the best rules.

x1004 (显示个人资料) 2013年6月29日上午8:49:12

Chainy:"Na" sounds a bit weird to me. Esperanto clearly works perfectly well without it, so I think it's better to stick with the standard form of the language.
+1

回到上端