The exact statistical preponderance of SVO over OVS in Esperanto is irrelevant (Prof. Wim Jansen measured it at twelve to one), as is the instances of SVO as the normal order in other languages.

The issue is whether the average Esperantist thinks that John X-as je Fred means the same as John X-as Fred.

This business with un-Esperanto-izable names has always been a murky one, but since the conversation seems to have drifted to word order, here’s the PAG’s two cents on the issue:

Plena Analiza Gramatiko:272 In Esperanto the word order is free, that is, there are no special word order rules in it; one must strive only for clarity and euphony. Still, in Esperanto certain principles are in effect, which to disobey are not advised, because they conform to the natural course of thought. And there even exist a few rare occasions when one must keep to a fixed word order.

The normal word order is: subject, predicate, object, circumstantial complement. One can change this order, and often even must ... But one must not make changes without cause, because only in this way can one make the change mean something and allow one to get a sense of a certain nuance: the accentuation of a certain sentence element.

sudanglo:The issue is whether the average Esperantist thinks that John X-as je Fred means the same as John X-as Fred.

As a general failsafe preposition, je might seem like the logical choice to substitute for -n, and it does get used to mark the object of verbal nouns in situations where using de might be confusing (ex., nekredo je Dio; havi rajton je io).

On the other hand, je has established meanings of its own, and for the same reason that de can be confusing in some situations, je would be in John batas je Fred.

The only unambiguous solutions, unfortunately, are the somewhat clunky workarounds John batas Fred-on and Fred estas batata de John. Word order alone wouldn’t be enough, since there’s no way to know for sure if John batas Fred is using standard or emphatic word order. A word like na would be nice if it could be restricted to situations like this, but there’s no reason why it would be if it were ever introduced.

erinja:For that matter, I think the placement of the verb is almost irrelevant. English is a SVO language but if I said "Erin Fred hit", it would be much more likely to be understood as "Erin hit Fred" than "Fred hit Erin".

Don't be so sure. Upon hearing "Erin Fred hit," I assumed Fred was the subject. I guess it's because I thought of it with an imaginary comma after "Erin."

Anyway, the argument for the use of "je," is as follows...

According to the Akademio de Esperanto:

Instead of je, the objective without a preposition may be used, when no confusion is to be feared.

So then it isn't explicitly stated, but one could assume that the converse might also be true...that one can use "je" instead of the accusative.

But I agree with most everyone here in that it isn't really necessary assuming one sticks with SVO.

morfran:This business with un-Esperanto-izable names has always been a murky one, but since the conversation seems to have drifted to word order, here’s the PAG’s two cents on the issue:

Plena Analiza Gramatiko:272 In Esperanto the word order is free, that is, there are no special word order rules in it; one must strive only for clarity and euphony. Still, in Esperanto certain principles are in effect, which to disobey are not advised, because they conform to the natural course of thought. And there even exist a few rare occasions when one must keep to a fixed word order.

The normal word order is: subject, predicate, object, circumstantial complement. One can change this order, and often even must ... But one must not make changes without cause, because only in this way can one make the change mean something and allow one to get a sense of a certain nuance: the accentuation of a certain sentence element.

"Natural course of thought" is a subjective concept, actually. In American Sigh Language, you can't do an action to something unless the something is there first. I would assume the same idea would be in vogue with languages that have the object in front of the verb, so, THEIR natural course of thought would be SOV or maybe even OVS. Just an idea.

Rejsi:But I agree with most everyone here in that it isn't really necessary assuming one sticks with SVO.

The problem is that not everyone does stick to SVO, even when SVO would be the most appropriate choice per the PAG.

Yoda:Han mortpafis Greedo.

Sometimes Yoda speaks OVS, sometimes not. He could be speaking “normally” here (“Han shot Greedo”), but emphatically (“It was Han that Greedo shot”). Or he could just be talking like he normally does. After eight or nine hundred years of speaking whatever common language they seem to speak in the Star Wars universe, the facts of who shot whom clear do not the Jedi master make.

orthohawk:languages that have the object in front of the verb, so, THEIR natural course of thought would be SOV or maybe even OVS. Just an idea.

Especially when you take into consideration that syntactically the object of a transitive verb is much more tightly knit to the verb than the subject (to the verb).

Whatever might be the thought processes of non-Esperantist speakers of OVS languages is besides the point.

All that matters is who is considered to be the aggressor by speakers of Esperanto in 'John batis Zamenhof'.

Why not ask 100 Esperantists of different linguistic backgrounds and see the result?

And just in case you still think word order in Esperanto doesn't count, consider the following.

1. Blindulo povas ne vidi.
2. Besto estas leono.
3. Mi ne komprenas la problemo estas kio.
4. Li parolas rapide tre.
5. la homo vi renkontis kiun.

sudanglo:Whatever might be the thought processes of non-Esperantist speakers of OVS languages is besides the point.

In the example Han mortpafis Greedo, it obviously is an Esperanto-speaker.

sudanglo:All that matters is who is considered to be the aggressor by speakers of Esperanto in 'John batis Zamenhof’.

And just in case you still think word order in Esperanto doesn't count...

I absolutely agree that word order matters. And in a simple declarative sentence, Esperanto favors SVO.

The question is: Is John batis Zamenhof a simple declarative sentence?

If it is, then John is the one with the anger issues. But if the sentence is meant to be emphatic, then it’s Zamenhof.

Which is the case depends on the context. Without context, it’d be dicey to second guess what the “average Esperantist” would think. In this thread alone, the average Esperantist can’t seem to agree.

(One can assume that John batis Zamenhof will be read “John hit Zamenhof”, but I believe there’s an English expression about that. Better to express the J-on-Z violence in a way that would be clear to all Esperantists, not just the fictional “average” one.)

erinja:For that matter, I think the placement of the verb is almost irrelevant. English is a SVO language but if I said "Erin Fred hit", it would be much more likely to be understood as "Erin hit Fred" than "Fred hit Erin".

Since OVS, OSV, etc is a vanishingly rare situation in world languages, I think that so long as the subject comes before the object in the sentence, the first noun (proper name in this case) would be almost certain to be understood as the subject, and the second noun as the object. That is, of course, unless the grammar of the sentence is complicated by other factors.

I am not a native speaker of English, so you are certainly right about how natives understund "Erin Fred hit". I just want to add that I spontaneously understood it the opposite way. I think the reasoning behind my impression was that such a peculiar word order would not have been presented if there had not been a need to move "Erin" to give it emphasis, and that would not have been the case, if it had been the subject.

Such a word order, with the verb last, doesn't exist in my mother tongue, Swedish, but we often use OVS when special emphasis is on the object, and SVO or VSO(2V) otherwise. In the cases of SVO and OVS, we then have to use different means, grammatical and contextual, to make sure that the idea is properly understood when they appear in writing.

For users of Esperanto it cannot be difficult to handle these very rare situations, where both subject and object are proper names, and neither ending on a vovel. To rely on word order only is too risky.