rlsinclair:Basically it is because I still believe in the idea behind the language. I really wanted it to be right. Maybe that is why I am so angry and frustrated that it is such an amateurish mess.

Can you give some linguistic justification for calling the uses of the n-case, paralleled by a lot of European languages (including English, or do you think expressions like the other day, ten feet long etc. are nominatives?) "an amateurish mess"?

Tempodivalse:You make some good points. Yet as someone who has (to varying degrees) studied languages with very "simple" or isolating grammar such as Mandarin and Haitian Creole, I can attest that, at a certain point, simplicity takes a toll on the quick comprehensibility of sentences because the syntax is more poorly delineated. It can become tricky to unravel very long sentences.

Fair enough. I suppose I'm mainly going the experiences I've had actually getting people to understand this part of the language, where all I can say is that the issue has generally been far from trivial. Though of course that could say more about my teaching abilities than it does about the accusative

tommjames:

Tempodivalse:You make some good points. Yet as someone who has (to varying degrees) studied languages with very "simple" or isolating grammar such as Mandarin and Haitian Creole, I can attest that, at a certain point, simplicity takes a toll on the quick comprehensibility of sentences because the syntax is more poorly delineated. It can become tricky to unravel very long sentences.

Fair enough. I suppose I'm mainly going the experiences I've had actually getting people to understand this part of the language, where all I can say is that the issue has generally been far from trivial. Though of course that could say more about my teaching abilities than it does about the accusative

The accusative, I've noticed, primarily poses a problem only for speakers of English, or sometimes other languages to which cases are essentially foreign, like Chinese. I rarely see German or Slavic speakers struggle with it. It took me about two weeks of intermittent practice to become comfortable using the accusative, though even now I occasionally flub it if I'm not paying attention.

When helping anglophone komencantoj with the accusative, I sometimes get the impression they forget what a direct object is! If they're not careful, they tend to over-rely on SVO order and become confused when faced with alternative word orders. In my experience, speakers of other languages face a shallower learning curve, or just pick it up intuitively.

I'm not sure what to conclude. Perhaps monolingual anglophones are at an intrinsic disadvantage, or else my anecdotal experiences aren't representative? . . .

erinja:
I hate the accusative in English. Too complicated! That is why I make sure to say "I see he" and "She sees I", "He sees they", etc. English has consistent word order so you don't need these complicated "objects" to be understood perfectly.

Hey, that's what I did in my first English exam ever at school, when we hadn't learned about object pronouns yet ...

As for the question - erinja is right, somebody not using -n in Esperanto sounds exactly like "I see he" and "She sees I". You might be able to understand, but it just doesn't sound right.

Are there periodic threads in the Russian-language forums of this board demanding the removal of "la" from Esperanto? I understand Russian has no definite article.

Just wondering.

Bruso:Are there periodic threads in the Russian-language forums of this board demanding the removal of "la" from Esperanto? I understand Russian has no definite article.

Just wondering.

No, not to my knowledge. A perfunctory scan of Russian sub-forum shows no complaints over the definite article in recent years (there has been some displeasure voiced over the circumflexes, however).

I've noticed that some Russian Esperantists use "la" irregularly, but nobody (that I'm aware of) makes a big deal about it. I'm not sure there even is a single universally accepted set of rules for "la"; many people tend to use it as in their native languages.

In any case, "la" is optional, at least technically. In most situations it can be omitted without significantly blurring or changing the meaning of a sentence.

As a French and English speaker I have trouble with the accusative because these languages don't make full use of it.
But again I stress the point that, most people have a personal word order they stick to. SVO, OVS, OSV, VOS, whatever... It would take only a few seconds longer to respond and eventually remember that person's word order. Thus I find the -n redundant.

WeekzGod:As a French and English speaker I have trouble with the accusative because these languages don't make full use of it.
But again I stress the point that, most people have a personal word order they stick to. SVO, OVS, OSV, VOS, whatever... It would take only a few seconds longer to respond and eventually remember that person's word order. Thus I find the -n redundant.

Oh, good grief. This discussion is so tiresome. The topic has been discussed back and forth, up and down for years and years over and over again.

Clear result: Who thinks that accusative is redundant, just doesn't know the language adequately. It's by far not only about the word order. There are many more cases where the accusative is used to make things unambiguous.

La patro traktas la filon kiel princon kaj la filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo.

WeekzGod:As a French and English speaker I have trouble with the accusative because these languages don't make full use of it.
But again I stress the point that, most people have a personal word order they stick to. SVO, OVS, OSV, VOS, whatever... It would take only a few seconds longer to respond and eventually remember that person's word order. Thus I find the -n redundant.

You might be suprized but i don't disagree. The point is that Esperanto is at is. Leaving out the accusative from now on would make a different language. Due to its size Esperanto nowadays can only change like other "big" languages do: By the vast majority of its speakers and maybe by a norming institute such as the AdE. Trying to reform the language by saying „i don't like feature x“ is futile and also quite gullible.

If you find yourself being unsatisfied with too many features of Esperanto it might be the best option to go on and find another language, that suits your needs and wishes more. You wouldn't be the first to do so.

johmue:Clear result: Who thinks that accusative is redundant, just doesn't know the language adequately. It's by far not only about the word order. There are many more cases where the accusative is used to make things unambiguous.

La patro traktas la filon kiel princon kaj la filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo.

The use of the accusative specifically to disambiguate phrases is pretty uncommon and context usually allows us to get by quite well without it. Your "traktas kiel princon" phrase is a perfect example of where the accusative isn't necessary; omit it and the meaning will remain clear.