Contenido
Responder

Do you use "na"?

de rann, 14 de septiembre de 2015

Aportes: 137

Idioma: English

Fenris_kcf (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 10:20:32

jagr2808:Alice amas John-on....
Just as you seem to dislike the "na"-solution, others (me including) dislike that solution.

tommjames (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 10:24:54

Alkanadi:Alice amas John <-- Who loves who?
Alice loves John, as SVO word order is usually assumed in these cases. Of course in written Esperanto there is no issue because you can mark the accusative with "-n" or "-on" if you wish, as already indicated.

sudanglo (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 11:33:20

Word order and/or common sense decides the issue, when subject or object are not explicit.

Zamenhof volas iom da kuko (Zamehof is subject)
Necesos iom da tempo (iom da tempo is subject)
Kiom da mono havas EAB? (EAB is subject)
Zamenhof renkontis Einstein (Einstein is object)

Note also how order determines the sense in

Leono estas besto (not all animals are lions)

Na is also unnecessary to disambiguate phrases like 'akcepto de la urbestro' (la urbestro akceptis, oni akceptis la urbestron).

If it is not already clear from context that the urbestro is the subject say 'la akcepto far la urbestro'.

Matthieu (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 11:56:17

Na is unnecessary and you shouldn't use it if you want people to understand you. I've never had a misunderstanding because the accusative couldn't be marked on a proper noun.

Vestitor (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 12:14:52

Alkanadi:

Apple jurpersekutas Microsoft <-- who is suing who?
In this case it's probably palindromically true anyway.

Tempodivalse (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 17:12:35

*Na is completely redundant. Actually, even the old trick of slapping -on is not necessary (though far preferable to *na).

1) In the majority of contexts, it is just obvious via context what is going on.

--> Johano preferas uzi Linux.

2) When only the direct object or subject cannot comfortably take an accusative ending, it should still be obvious where the accusative is intended, because the other word will be clearly in the accusative or in the nominative.

--> Richter rimarkis la maljuna hhorestro en la kirko.

"Richter" must be the accusative, since the only other substantive not preceded by a preposition is clearly in the nominative. Compare this to:

--> Richter rimarkis la maljunan hhorestron en la kirko.

Now it is clear that Richter is the subject.

3) When neither direct object nor subject can take the accusative ending, we revert to SVO word order.

--> Internet Explorer fine elpushis Netscape.

There is nothing wrong with relying on word order; we do it all the time in sentences like Multe da knaboj vidis multe da knabinoj. Oddly, I never see supporters of na insist upon using the preposition in constructions with kelke da, multe da, iom da etc., even though there is the same inability to add an accusative ending in those situations as there is with un-Esperanticised names.

RiotNrrd (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 18:17:11

I speak Esperanto. Therefore, I do not use na.

If you want to speak some ido, go ahead and use it. Just be aware that what you are speaking is not Esperanto.

Edigxepe (Mostrar perfil) 14 de septiembre de 2015 18:37:24

Komike, la artikolo vikipedia pri "Na (prepozicio)" inkluzivas cxi tiun frazon:
"Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri la prepozicio. Por aliaj signifoj de la vorto vidu Na-n."
Bonvolu rigardi kiel tiu frazo uzas "Na-n" anstataux "na Na".
Persone, mi neniam uzas la na-an prepozicion. Gxi simple ne estas bezona!

vejktoro (Mostrar perfil) 15 de septiembre de 2015 00:07:54

I just add -n or -on if I want to be clear.

Nobody ever complains.

Tempodivalse (Mostrar perfil) 15 de septiembre de 2015 01:25:45

Look, you don't even need to add the -on or -n. In all of the three scenarios which I outlined in my previous post, you can do just fine without any overt indicator of the accusative at all. This especially holds true for tricky examples mentioned by Roch and others.

The Esperantisation (or non-Esperantisation) of proper names is a really messy issue (with many disagreements even among proficient speakers), but seems quite distinct from the question of whether to use *na.

Volver arriba