Ir ao conteúdo
Responder

Preposition: Na

de BoriQa, 28 de junho de 2013

Mensagens: 32

Idioma: English

BoriQa (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 11:35:18

While studying Esperanto prepositions I found this one in Wiktionary: Na

Esperanto Wikipedia has an article on:
Na (prepozicio)

Etymology

Presumably from the accusative suffix -n.

Preposition

na
1.(neologism) Preposition introducing an accusative phrase.

Mi legis na Gerda Malaperis. = I read Gerda Disappeared.

Usage notes

Unofficial; it is at least passively recognized by Esperantists on the Internet. Usage is not recommended where the accusative suffix is possible (on nouns and adjectives), but where it is not: numerals (unu (“one”)), particles (iom (“some”), ties (“that one's”)), letters (J), titles of books, and quotations.

====

I haven't found this preposition before in my Esperanto reference dictionaries.

Does anyone in the forum use this preoposition?

What does it take for something "unofficial" to become official in Esperanto?

Can "je" be a valid preposition in this context?

Mi legis je Gerda Malaperis. = I read Gerda Disappeared.

erinja (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 11:44:57

People don't use "na". A very few people insist on using it but it's rare (and I know literally only one experienced speaker who uses it - normally when I see it used, it's in a text obviously written by a beginner who is experimenting).

Things become official when the Academy notices that they have entered widespread use. So in other words, something needs to actually enter the language in a serious way before it is made official. Given the minimal use of "na", I don't expect that ever to happen.

Alternatives - some people do use "je". But it's correct just to use nothing.

"Mi legis Gerda malaperis".
"Mi vidis John Smith"

Remember that the subject and object are still clear - if it was "John Smith saw me", it would be "Min vidis John Smith", for example. You'd only have potential question if it were "John Smith legis Gerda malaperis", but in a case where grammar wasn't marked for this reason, you wouldn't use an unusual word order, you'd use subject-verb-object.

In writing, people will write things like "Mi legis 'Gerda Malaperis'-n", or "Mi vidis John Smith-n", but that isn't grammatically necessary either. Like I said before, since "mi" lacks -n, the subject is clear.

Fenris_kcf (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 11:50:58

I'm using it. Using je instead is not a good idea IMO since it is meant to have no certain meaning. If it would be used as accusative-marker, it would get one.

Also take a look in this thread

foggy67 (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 12:46:21

Admin: Please translate this message into English or it will be deleted (this is the English forum, so all non-English messages must be accompanied by a translation)

Bonan tagon!

La esperantujo ne bezonas tian mistauxgan prepozicion. La lingvo fakte estas suficxe fleksebla kaj ricxa por esprimi cxiuokaze la akuzativon. Jen la klarigoj kun siaj ekzemploj.

Ĉe propraj nomoj ĝenerale 'neesperantigeblaj' (, kiuj ne finigxas per -o): oni aldonas la finaĵon -n post vokalo, aŭ -on post konsonanto. Tiel la devena formo restas rekonebla. Ĉi-kaze oni uzas la formon Shakespeare-on por nekutimaj vortoj (aŭ eĉ Ŝekspiron).
Antaŭ literoj: anstataŭ "Na J oni aldonas por krei pluralon.", oni preferu "La literon J oni aldonas por krei pluralon.".
Antaŭ numeraloj: anstataŭ "Ŝovu na 1 (unu) je tri cifer-pozicioj maldekstren.", oni preferu "Ŝovu la numeralon 1 (unu) je tri cifer-pozicioj maldekstren.".
Antaŭ priparolataj vortoj: anstataŭ "Evitu uzi na alies, uzu na aliula.", oni preferu "Evitu uzi la vorton alies, uzu la vorton aliula.".
Antaŭ titoloj: anstataŭ "Mi legis na Gerda Malaperis.", oni preferu "Mi legis la verkon Gerda Malaperis.",
Antaŭ citaĵoj: anstataŭ "Cezaro diris na 'Ĵetkubo estas ĵetita' .", oni preferu "Cezaro diris, ke ĵetkubo estas ĵetita".
La problemo pri ambaŭ ŝajnas esti sensignifa : anstataŭ "Mi volas ambaŭ.", oni preferu "Mi volas ĉiujn du." Zamenhof mem malkonsilis diri "Mi volas la ambaŭon" en la kolekto "Lingvaj Respondoj".
Rilate al la frazo "Ĉiuj knabinoj ŝatas ĉiujn knabojn, sed nur iom da virinoj ŝatas iom da viroj.", oni povas anstataŭe diri ke, "Ĉiuj knabinoj ŝatas ĉiujn knabojn, sed nur iomaj virinoj ŝatas iomajn virojn."

La oficiala enkonduko de "na" kreus pli da konfuzo ol gxi ne solvus.

Kirilo81 (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 12:54:10

Fenris_kcf:Using je instead is not a good idea IMO since it is meant to have no certain meaning. If it would be used as accusative-marker, it would get one.
Wondering about this logic since half an hour now and I still can't get it...
je is exactly what should be used if there is no other way to mark an object, which could hardly occur, however.

@foggy67: Please translate your message into English in this forum.

Fenris_kcf (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 13:08:51

Kirilo81:
Fenris_kcf:Using je instead is not a good idea IMO since it is meant to have no certain meaning. If it would be used as accusative-marker, it would get one.
Wondering about this logic since half an hour now and I still can't get it...
je is exactly what should be used if there is no other way to mark an object, which could hardly occur, however.
Only if it is unclear which role in the phrase the object takes. If you use je for these cases and accusative, you could have multiple je-objects; e.g.:

„Ŝi montras je la mapo je la BigBen.“

I would have to read a sentence like this several times in order to understand it's meaning. Abuse of je IMO.

x1004 (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 13:16:33

I don't understand this war against that poor accusative case. In Polish we have seven different cases and we are just fine. The Esperanto has two distinct cases: the nominative and the accusative. So what's the big deal? English also has this accusative. It is expressed by the rather fixed word order:

The man bites the dog
The dog bites the man (is not the same as the one above)

In Esperanto the word order is not fixed, so we need other way to express the accusative. And it is done with the -n ending:

Homo mordas hundon

and also

Hundon mordas homo

Homo hundon mordas

Hundon homo mordas

...

It is so much more flexible than English thanks to the accusative case. It is so much freedom. Why get rid of it?

Fenris_kcf (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 13:33:01

Ääähhh... na is meant for nouns on which you can't append '-n'. Who said anything againt accusative at all in this thread?

Tempodivalse (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 15:37:18

It should not be a problem to use "je" in sentences where it would be inconvenient to add the -n ending. I do this myself sometimes, and am rarely misunderstood. The point is to indicate which word isn't the subject -- a function "je" fulfills just as well as "na". The latter is just a redundant neologism (I would claim that most neologisms are redundant).

Obviously "je" shouldn't be overused when more precise words are available; but neither should it be shunned. In a sentence like "Li aŭskultis je John Smith" the presence of the preposition doesn't sound awkward to me at all.

And when both subject and object are unable to take the accusative ending, things get quite ambiguous. I advise against relying on SVO for such cases, because word order (by itself) should play no role in sentence syntax. "Jones vidis Smith" is as unclear to my ear as the erroneous "Li vidis ŝi". "Jones vidis Smith-on" or "Jones vidis je Smith" sound much clearer.

marcuscf (Mostrar o perfil) 28 de junho de 2013 17:33:00

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.). 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.

P.S.: I see you prefer "je", not "na". I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly above, and I wouldn't know how to rephrase that paragraph. ridulo.gif

De volta à parte superior