tommjames:

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.

But what does "La filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo." mean, if you don't know whether I on purpose haven't put an "-n" at "reĝo" or just "ommitted" it for its assumed redundancy?

johume:But what does "La filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo." mean, if you don't know whether I on purpose haven't put an "-n" at "reĝo" or just "ommitted" it for its assumed redundancy?

Bear in mind I'm talking about a hypothetical Esperanto where the accusative isn't used to disambiguate. In such an Esperanto your question wouldn't even arise and there would be no issue. The phrase would be interpreted in the way that makes the most sense.

But to answer the question, when I read that second part of the phrase I actually assumed you meant "the son treats his father as if he (his father) were a king" since that is the sensible interpretation, and that you'd left -n off in error. If you didn't leave it off in error, and in fact meant "the son treats his father in the way that kings treat people", then I'd say the phrase is odd because it is not clear what "how kings treat people" is supposed to mean. How do kings treat people, exactly? We probably shouldn't use meaningless ideas like this, regardless of whether they can be disambiguated with the accusative.

tommjames:

johume:But what does "La filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo." mean, if you don't know whether I on purpose haven't put an "-n" at "reĝo" or just "ommitted" it for its assumed redundancy?

Bear in mind I'm talking about a hypothetical Esperanto where the accusative isn't used to disambiguate. In such an Esperanto your question wouldn't even arise and there would be no issue. The phrase would be interpreted in the way that makes the most sense.

Ok. An what if I meant it in another way? What do you mean by "makes the most sense"? Most sense to you? Most sense to me?

But to answer the question, when I read that second part of the phrase I actually assumed you meant "the son treats his father as if he (his father) were a king" since that is the sensible interpretation, and that you'd left -n off in error. If you didn't leave it off in error, and in fact meant "the son treats his father in the way that kings treat people", then I'd say the phrase is odd because it is not clear what "how kings treat people" is supposed to mean. How do kings treat people, exactly?

That's exactly why the accusative is useful. You say it is redundant, but you make all kinds of assumptions (which can be wrong) or rely on context to disambiguate a phrase. That is exactly what Esperanto is trying to avoid. Those kinds of assumptions are a cultural thing and Esperanto tries to be a cross cultural language.

Of course accusative may be redundant if you bring in context, but then it is still not redundant by itself but only in combination with the context information you have. And this kind of redundancy is a good thing.

Fenris_kcf:

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.

You don't have to try and kick me out because I don't like the -n.
I was just wondering if any one agreed with me. I am not advocating it be changed, I just personally don't use it and wondered if anyone else felt the same way.
Chill out.

Using a fixed word order still would solve the ambiguity-problem, e.g.

La patro traktas la filo kiel princo kaj la filo kiel la reĝo traktas la patro.

It would even make more sense, since "kiel la reĝo" belongs/refers to to the subject.

[La filo kiel la reĝo] [traktas] [la patro].

"WeekzGod":You don't have to try and kick me out because I don't like the -n.

I'm sorry, that's totally not what i intended. Just wanted to tell you that there are other conlangs out there and that you have the freedom to choose one.

"WeekzGod":I was just wondering if any one agreed with me. I am not advocating it be changed, I just personally don't use it and wondered if anyone else felt the same way.

OK, feel free to. Just be aware that many people will regard you as an eterna komencanto.

"WeekzGod":Chill out.

I will. Thanks

johume:Ok. An what if I meant it in another way?

In that scenario I'd say you'd be talking nonsense, because there's only one way "the son treats his dad like a king" makes any sense. If you're using the phrase to mean something else then you're either talking gobbledegook or imposing some bizarre local idiom on what is supposed to be a universal language.

Out of interest, what "other way" did you have in mind?

johmue:That's exactly why the accusative is useful.

So are you going to explain what you intended to say by "La filo traktas la patron kiel reĝo"? If you meant what I assumed you meant, then clearly the accusative wasn't very useful since you were supposed to use it on "reĝo", yet you omitted it. This is actually a good example of when it isn't useful, not when it is.

Unless of course you actually meant "the son treats his dad like kings treat people", in which case the example is simply bad because the idea being expressed is incoherent.

johmue:You say it is redundant

Actually no, I say it can be redundant in a lot of cases.

johume:but you make all kinds of assumptions (which can be wrong) or rely on context to disambiguate a phrase. That is exactly what Esperanto is trying to avoid. Those kinds of assumptions are a cultural thing and Esperanto tries to be a cross cultural language.

I think you're exaggerating the clarifying effect the accusative has on cross cultural comprehension. For sure it helps, I just don't think it helps enough to warrant the extra difficulty it brings. I have no problem at all with Esperanto coming down on the side of clarity; in fact I rather like that aspect of the language. But IMO it isn't the right balance for an easy to learn universal auxlang.

johume:Of course accusative may be redundant if you bring in context, but then it is still not redundant by itself but only in combination with the context information you have.

Agreed. As I stated above, I'm not saying the accusative is redundant per se.

johume:And this kind of redundancy is a good thing.

Good maybe. Worth having, I doubt.

tommjames:Unless of course you actually meant "the son treats his dad like kings treat people", in which case the example is simply bad because the idea being expressed is incoherent.

To me this is not incoherent and it is actually the way I meant it.

So here it is. The accusative is necessary to avoid ambiguity that would lead to misunderstanding due to assumptions out of some cultural or personal mindset.

johmue:To me this is not incoherent and it is actually the way I meant it.

That being the case I maintain that the example is bad.

johume:So here it is. The accusative is necessary to avoid ambiguity that would lead to misunderstanding due to assumptions out of some cultural or personal mindset.

Correction: The accusative can be useful, (but often not necessary) to avoid ambiguity that would lead to misunderstanding, but this has its limits, particularly when we try to express nebulous ideas that derive from some cultural or personal mindset.

tommjames:

johmue:To me this is not incoherent and it is actually the way I meant it.

That being the case I maintain that the example is bad.

Why? Because it shows the advantage of accusative?

johume:So here it is. The accusative is necessary to avoid ambiguity that would lead to misunderstanding due to assumptions out of some cultural or personal mindset.

Correction: The accusative can be useful, (but often not necessary) to avoid ambiguity that would lead to misunderstanding, but this has its limits, particularly when we try to express nebulous ideas that derive from some cultural or personal mindset.

What you are doing is not a correction. You're showing a different perspective coming from a different cultural or personal mindset. In your cultural or personal mindset a certain idea might be nebulous, in another cultural context it might be totally clear and evident. As Esperanto is meant to be cross cultural, it tries to be as precise as possible by its grammar.

That's a design feature of Esperanto, which I talk about to university students in already in the second lesson. The grammar of Esperanto is coherent and regular, but it is unmerciful. It leaves a lot of responsibility to the speaker/writer, which other languages like English would leave to the listener/reader. This often makes beginners feel uncomfortable.

johmue:Why? Because it shows the advantage of accusative?

No. If you're going to demonstrate the disambiguation benefits of the accusative then you need to present an example that actually disambiguates. Your example merely causes confusion, because the idea you're trying to express is unclear and conflicts with a more sensible interpretation.

johmue:In your cultural or personal mindset a certain idea might be nebulous, in another cultural context it might be totally clear and evident.

Maybe "how kings treat people" means something to you, but I doubt it will be at all obvious to speakers in general.

In any case you still haven't explained what the idea means. Please feel free to do so at any point.