Is trans a preposition that inherently shows movement like ĝis or al, and hence no -n ending is needed?
For example, the sentence, Let's travel across the United States to Mexico. Ni veturu trans Usono(n?), al Meksiko. Is an -n ending needed after Usono?
This example is also confusing for me because I was under the impression the -n ending shows movement and destination, not just general movement.
For example, one would correctly say, Ni veturu en Usono or La kuniklo saltas sub la lito., if one is talking about movement within a place, and not to a place.

Edit: I just noticed my typos on the poll. The verb is veturu.

I may be mistaken, but I thought "trans" was a place and "tra" was a movement. So "trans la strato" means "on the other side of the street" and "tra la strato" means "crossing the street". Hence you may see "trans la straton" to mean "to the other side of the street".

Am I totally off base here? Trans/tra are pretty close.

DuckFiasco:I may be mistaken, but I thought "trans" was a place and "tra" was a movement. So "trans la strato" means "on the other side of the street" and "tra la strato" means "crossing the street". Hence you may see "trans la straton" to mean "to the other side of the street".

Am I totally off base here? Trans/tra are pretty close.

After consulting the textaro, this seems to be exactly how Zamenhof used these words.

afablulo:Is trans a preposition that inherently shows movement like ĝis or al, and hence no -n ending is needed?
For example, the sentence, Let's travel across the United States to Mexico. Ni veturu trans Usono(n?), al Meksiko. Is an -n ending needed after Usono?
This example is also confusing for me because I was under the impression the -n ending shows movement and destination, not just general movement.
For example, one would correctly say, Ni veturu en Usono or La kuniklo saltas sub la lito., if one is talking about movement within a place, and not to a place.

Edit: I just noticed my typos on the poll. The verb is veturu.

Just quoting the "Fundamento":

La hirundo flugis trans la riveron, ĉar trans la rivero sin trovis aliaj hirundoj.

Let's travel across the United States to Mexico.One of the things that studying Esperanto does is to make you more sensitive to multiple meanings in one's mother tongue.

Across covers a number of meanings.

1. Where's the nearest bridge across the river? (over)
2. What's the name of that town across the river? (on the other side)
3. Parties of the right are gaining popularity across Europe (throughout)

Using the accusative with trans is obviously desirable when the sentence could plausibly interpreted as meaning on the other side and that is not the intended meaning.

The choice between accusative and nominative may not be so critical in some cases, or it may just add a certain nuance. The accusative seems to me to emphasize going beyond the other side of whatever the trans relates to.

In the case of travelling across America to Mexico, it is not immediately clear if this means entering Mexico via the United States, or doing some sight-seeing across America up to the Southern border.