メッセージ: 137
言語: English
tommjames (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月14日 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 (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月14日 11:33:20
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'.
Tempodivalse (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月14日 17:12:35
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.
Edigxepe (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月14日 18:37:24
"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!
Tempodivalse (プロフィールを表示) 2015年9月15日 1:25:45
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.