Hello,

Some people use na when introducing a proper name that isn't amenable to taking Esperanto affixes cleanly and must take the accusative case. I'm aware that this preposition is "unofficial." But, I don't get the sense that na is so far out of the norm that it qualifies as slang or outright bad Esperanto. I just recently learned that je is also used in exactly the same way by some speakers. This seems odd to me because I don't think I've ever run into je being used in this way outside of one Wikipedia article.

Evolution is proof of life, which is kind of cool to watch. Is one approach "winning out" over the other in Esperanto? If so, is one approach likely to be blessed by AdE over the other?

eojeff:Hello,

Some people use na when introducing a proper name that isn't amenable to taking Esperanto affixes cleanly and must take the accusative case. I'm aware that this preposition is "unofficial." But, I don't get the sense that na is so far out of the norm that it qualifies as slang or outright bad Esperanto. I just recently learned that je is also used in exactly the same way by some speakers. This seems odd to me because I don't think I've ever run into je being used in this way outside of one Wikipedia article.

Evolution is proof of life, which is kind of cool to watch. Is one approach "winning out" over the other in Esperanto? If so, is one approach likely to be blessed by AdE over the other?

Because the Esperanto speakers are spread out over the whole world. there is a risk that a development of the language will result in a split into dialects. To avoid a loss of unity, there are some procedures to be followed in the development of the language. Na has not come out of these rules.

Na is redundant. I would not use it anywhere. It by no means is becoming standard usage, nor is it acceptable just because a few people decide they like it.

Je is a failsafe preposition that simply marks a non-nominative. For stylistic purposes it is better not used to mark a direct object - it has too many other connotations. I highly doubt the Akademio would take either of these options seriously.

Now, the standard way to deal with non-Esperanticised nouns in the accusative is to not explicitly mark accusativity at all. The desired meaning will normally be obvious.

Mi aŭskultas Richter. - Mi is established as the subject immediately. There can be no confusion. If Richter is the subject, the sentence would read: Min aŭskultas Richter.

For comparison, in Russian there are regular nouns (пальто, шоссе) and certain foreign proper nouns (Науру, эсперанто) that do not decline. Russian depends far more heavily on cases than Esperanto, yet this rarely, if ever, causes ambiguity or confusion. Same for Esperanto.

An occasionally-seen alternative is to slap an -on on the end of the word anyway. This might be helpful where both subject and object are non-Esperanticised:

Fine Explorer superregis Netscape-on.

Note that even this isn't strictly necessary. Context would usually make things clear, and if not, we can rely on the "default" SVO word order to minimise confusion. This is no different from situations like Multe da homoj faris multe da eraroj.

None of these is "winning out". Using "je" in this situation is theoretically possible but it's uncommon. I know some people who use "na", but they're a really small minority and you should avoid using this word if you want people to understand you.

I suggest you forget about trying to explicitly mark the object with na or je for nouns that can't take the regular N-ending. It is extremely rare for any confusion to arise and so any proposed solution is largely redundant. Experienced speakers are well aware of this, and most of them will be hard pressed to recall any instance of confusion arising due to an unmarked object. The reformemuloj can come up with examples of supposedly ambiguous phrases all day long but it doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Elhana2:

tommjames:It is extremely rare for any confusion to arise and so any proposed solution is largely redundant.

So why should we mark it at all? It is redundant indeed, how many IE languages show.

Not marking it at all would be a very different thing to not marking it in an extremely tiny number of cases. You wouldn't be able to get away with omitting the accusative completely, because Esperanto speakers are accustomed to being able to vary the word order.

Good answers have been given.

I can add that non-marking of objects will occur in Esperanto in cases where the object is not a proper name (that doesn't lend itself to explicit marking).

For example:

Mi havas iom da mono - not Mi havas na iom da mono.

Mi ne menciis ies nomon - not Mi ne menciis ies-an nomon.

Mi pagis £10 - not Mi pagis na £10

In cases where the use of 'de' might lead to ambiguity, there is usually a solution, without recourse to 'na'.

La akcepto de la urbestro de la kongresanoj. Did the mayor make the acceptance speech or was the mayor accepted? This can be resolved with 'far' or 'fare de'

La amo de la patrino. Was the mother loved or did the mother love? This can be disambiguated with 'al'.

Though, of course, often context will make the intended meaning clear.

tommjames:

Elhana2:

tommjames:It is extremely rare for any confusion to arise and so any proposed solution is largely redundant.

So why should we mark it at all? It is redundant indeed, how many IE languages show.

Not marking it at all would be a very different thing to not marking it in an extremely tiny number of cases. You wouldn't be able to get away with omitting the accusative completely, because Esperanto speakers are accustomed to being able to vary the word order.

Indeed, not marking it at all is an entirely different proposition. We would lose quite a lot of expressibility for almost no reason (a single letter...not that hard, people). Word order is a standard to fall back on, not to rely on.

Redundancy is a good (almost necessary) part of reliable communication. You would be very displeased with the quality of your cell service if your carrier decided to stop using all these "redundant" error-correcting encodings on your data. I think that is one possible reason why natural languages have so many redundancies and irregularities.

So, is use of na, like riism, a passing fad?

The thing that confuses me is that some people think that use of na is somehow an assault on the fundamento. While I agree it's at least arguably an innovation. To me, it's no more of an assault on the fundamento then, say, the relatively new suffix -end. Why? Because it's isn't invalidating -n it's putting forward an optional alternate form of it. But, that's just my opinion.

while context and reason can make clear nominative from accusative, in order to avoid confusion when one has at least two proper nouns, one can use je to distinguish. Quinn amas je Casey, sed Casey je Quinn ne amas. i prefer that myself over tacking -on to the end. na is unnecessary. je does the job.

http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org/fundamento/gr...:14. Every preposition in the international language has a definite fixed meaning. If it be necessary to employ some preposition, and it is not quite evident from the sense which it should be, the word je is used, which has no definite meaning; for example, ĝoj'i je tio, „to rejoice over it”; rid'i je tio, „to laugh at it”; enu'o je la patr'uj'o, „a longing for one’s fatherland”. In every language different prepositions, sanctioned by usage, are employed in these dubious cases, in the international language, one word, je, suffices for all. Instead of je, the objective without a preposition may be used, when no confusion is to be feared.