Roch:Yes but the pronunciation changes:

Dubois is pronounced /duːˈbɔɪz/
so for english esperantists, you'll have to say Dubois-on, but for french esperantists the pronuciation is [bwa] so you would have to say Dubois-n to make ​[bwan]

Errr.
Okay, I have my first complaint!
Use Eo pronunciation when speaking Eo. It works fine as do the other figure-it-out-by-the-way-I-am-talking-to-you-methods.

Zero need for 'na'

Let's talk about something cool.

Bye now.

What many seem to ignore: Relying on the word-order for marking the roles is a graver modification to Esperanto than adding a prepoisition. I'm quite sure if one asks a native speaker of a non SVO-language (e.g. Hungarian) he/she would not adopt the word-order-solution that willingly.

PMEG

*Na*° estas eksperimenta rolvorteto, kiu montras rektan objekton... Ĉiuokaze *na* estas reformpropono evitenda. Komparu kun simila uzo de je.

REVO

Neoficiala prepozicio, kiun iuj metas antaŭ vorton aŭ frazparton, kies kazo estas akuzativo, kaj kiu ne povas alpreni la finaĵon -n...

PIV

Bedaŭrinde la serĉo ne estis sukcesa!

Wikipedia - Modern evolution of Esperanto

An accusative preposition na has been proposed and is widely recognized

Tekstaro - 3 examples in La Ondo de Esperanto

Google Translate - No results

I am scared to spend years and years studying Esperanto only to have it break up into dialects.

I like the sound of na, however, if the main scholarly sources of Esperanto grammar say that it should be avoided then I think I will have to comply.

Ci, ri, na <-- what other controversy can we argue about?

Fenris_kcf:What many seem to ignore: Relying on the word-order for marking the roles is a graver modification to Esperanto than adding a prepoisition. I'm quite sure if one asks a native speaker of a non SVO-language (e.g. Hungarian) he/she would not adopt the word-order-solution that willingly.

Oh really? How many fluent speakers of Esperanto that have Hungarian as a mother tongue have you spoken with?

Incidentally, the prevalence of SVO in Esperanto has been academically studied (Naturaj Vortordoj en Esperanto de Wim Jansen) and it turns out that this really is the dominant order accounting for 90% of the instances in the corpus studied.

Therefore in a sentence like Zamenhof renkontis Einstein, it is no surprise that Zamenhof is accepted as the subject.

There are many ordinary instances in Esperanto where word order is critical to meaning, so there is nothing alien in the idea that word order should be used to interpret 'Zamenhof renkontis Einstein'.

That you can vary the order when it is possible/convenient/normal to add 'n' or '-on' to flag the object (or when the evident absence of 'n' flags the subject) is a bonus, allowing stylistic variation or a shift of emphasis.

But is does not change the fact that Esperanto is a largely an SVO language and that anybody learning Esperanto soon becomes aware of that.

The idea that a whole band of Esperantists with certain mother tongues go around speaking Esperanto like some deranged Jeddi master out of Star Wars is ludicrous.

sudanglo:Incidentally, the prevalence of SVO in Esperanto has been academically studied (Naturaj Vortordoj en Esperanto de Wim Jansen) and it turns out that this really is the dominant order accounting for 90% of the instances in the corpus studied.

That's not a surprize at all given the share of Esperanto-learners, whose mother tongue is SVO.

sudanglo:Therefore in a sentence like Zamenhof renkontis Einstein, it is no surprise that Zamenhof is accepted as the subject.

To you and me, yes. But you can't project this way of thinking to all other people.

sudanglo:That you can vary the order when it is possible/convenient/normal to add 'n' or '-on' to flag the object (or when the evident absence of 'n' flags the subject) is a bonus, allowing stylistic variation or a shift of emphasis.

Following this statement would give the permission to always drop the accusative for direct objects.

sudanglo:But is does not change the fact that Esperanto is a largely an SVO language and that anybody learning Esperanto soon becomes aware of that.

As far as i know Zamenhof didn't declare a default word order. "Let's use SVO because most people did so in the past." is not a very convincing justification to me.

sudanglo:The idea that a whole band of Esperantists with certain mother tongues go around speaking Esperanto like some deranged Jeddi master out of Star Wars is ludicrous.

Sorry, but if you talk about non SVO-speakers that dismissively, i can't take you serious on that.

Fenris_kcf:What many seem to ignore: Relying on the word-order for marking the roles is a graver modification to Esperanto than adding a prepoisition. I'm quite sure if one asks a native speaker of a non SVO-language (e.g. Hungarian) he/she would not adopt the word-order-solution that willingly.

Relying on SVO word order is not a "modification"; this is the way it was always done. The default word order is overwhelmingly SVO, as demonstrated by a computerised syntactical analysis of any typical text, old or new.

For this reason, in sentences where neither the direct object nor the subject are capable of overtly showing a case ending, we rely on word order. There is nothing terrible about that. Speakers of non-SVO languages will adapt to it, just as (say) speakers of pro-drop languages will adapt to the fact you usually have to include an overt subject.

-> Kelke da instruistoj helpis multe da studentoj.

Who helped whom? We have to use SVO, unless perhaps the immediate context made it clear otherwise. Interestingly, I have not seen any supporter of na insist upon using na in sentences with nominalized adverbials.

Look, the reason SVO word order is dominant is due to normative constraints. If you ask any proficient Esperantist to look at a text where 90% of the sentences are VOS, and adjectives always follow nouns they modify, he will tell you it just looks/sounds jarring. This is because certain word orders and manners of speech are more prevalent and more normal than others. Of course it's not "ungrammatical", but it is poor style.

Fenris_kcf:Relying on the word-order for marking the roles is a graver modification to Esperanto than adding a preposition. I'm quite sure if one asks a native speaker of a non SVO-language (e.g. Hungarian) he/she would not adopt the word-order-solution that willingly.

These are both valid points. However, while many people (lilke Hungarians) might well benefit from the flexibility of Esperanto's word order, would they not also be likely to be aware from their own experience of the SVO order being used by most Esperantists?

i do not use na. it's needless. context and logic suffice in most cases. also if you really need to, you could always use a standard E-o preposition like al or je.

Alkanadi:

Ci, ri, na <-- what other controversy can we argue about?

Skematismo vs. neologismo?

rann:What are your thoughts on it?

I use it but in a very conservative way: I esperantise city names, personal names, company names &c. and use „na” probably only with quotes (like in: Uzas mi na „na”.).