evanamd:

Tempodivalse:

Roch:BTW, I don't like that they call na, a preposition, I would prefer some name that they use for -n and -on, maybe a "accusative marker" or something! Anyone have a better idea? Tempodivalse maybe? Since you were ready to use such a thing in last resort!

Except that *na is a preposition. That's what prepositions are - they're little words that you put before substantives to indicate their role in the sentence.

I thought a preposition indicated the relationship between a noun and another noun/element in the sentence. I would call it a particle, because na means nothing without the word it is marking.

Well, my definition was not quite accurate. But *na is definitely a pre-position - you position it before the word it attaches to, and it works a lot like al (replaces the dative case) and de (replaces genitive) and per (replaces instrumental case).

sudanglo:Mateno, just exactly (in your mind) what problem does 'na' solve in tiu instalado na Linukso daŭros ankoraŭ na iom da tempo?

instalado de Linukso is ambiguous: it can mean not only instalado na Linukxo (Linux is being installed), but also instalado far Linukso (Linux as an agens is installing something).

With ĝi daŭros (na) iom da tempo the problem is that if you get used to speaking naisme, you perceive the phrase without na as a missing accusative. It's like phrase Fred batis John, which sounds to you like Frederiko batis Johano.

This sounds really confusing because, as if in some strange coagulation of two phrases, we are being told that Frederiko batis and Johano batis but it doesn't say whom they (or whoever of them did the hitting (?)) hit. A phrase with two (?) subjects but no object. Not something you want to have.

So you use na and everything falls in place

mateno:instalado de Linukso is ambiguous: it can mean not only instalado na Linukxo (Linux is being installed), but also instalado far Linukso (Linux as an agens is installing something).

You can make many sentences like this that are ambiguous in theory but cause no problem in practice. In this case, if you have even the slightest idea about what Linux is, only the first one makes sense.

"Time flies like an arrow" can have two meanings in English ("Tempo flugas kiel sago" and "Tempomuŝoj ŝatas sagon"), but one of them is so absurd you don't even consider it.

Mutusen:"Time flies like an arrow" can have two meanings in English ("Tempo flugas kiel sago" and "Tempomuŝoj ŝatas sagon"), but one of them is so absurd you don't even consider it.

Reminds me of one of my favourite old lines: "Time flies like an arrow -- but fruit flies like a banana"

Mateno:instalado de Linukso is ambiguous: it can mean not only instalado na Linukso (Linux is being installed), but also instalado far Linukso (Linux as an agent is installing something).

You seem to have provided yourself with the appropriate na-less solution. That rather undermines your view of the necessity of 'na'.

I imagine however that context would normally make the offending phrase clear.

Mateno:With ĝi daŭros (na) iom da tempo the problem is that if you get used to speaking naisme, you perceive the phrase without na as a missing accusative.

Well stop using 'na'. Problem sorted

In any case, this is not a good example for your position. The subject ĝi is clearly identified. If it were the object it would be ĝin.

sudanglo:

Mateno:instalado de Linukso is ambiguous: it can mean not only instalado na Linukso (Linux is being installed), but also instalado far Linukso (Linux as an agent is installing something).

You seem to have provided yourself with the appropriate na-less solution. That rather undermines your view of the necessity of 'na'.

I imagine however that context would normally make the offending phrase clear.

The "old" Zamenhofian way of differentiating between passive and active de is to use the construction X-ado X-on for the passive. (Maybe someone proficient with the Tekstaro can dredge up examples? I am familiar only with savo de homaro vs savo homaron, two distinct meanings).

So, "instalado Linukson". Since in your example "Linukso" is Esperanticised, "na" is redundant because you could just append the accusative ending instead.

Incidentally, you might want to talk with the few other na-supporters in Esperantujo and agree whether you want to use na after correlative and adverbial constructions like iom da, multe da etc. Most na-ists I've met so far do not use na before such constructions, for good reason: they realise that it's pedantic and redundant.

In the meantime, it doesn't reflect well on the reform when its proponents have varying ideas of what it should do.

Mutusen:

"Time flies like an arrow" can have two meanings in English ("Tempo flugas kiel sago" and "Tempomuŝoj ŝatas sagon"), but one of them is so absurd you don't even consider it.

They told me at school that it was a third meaning: "kronometru muŝojn kiel iu sago". Can you confirm?

Tempodivalse:

The "old" Zamenhofian way of differentiating between passive and active de is to use the construction X-ado X-on for the passive. (Maybe someone proficient with the Tekstaro can dredge up examples? I am familiar only with savo de homaro vs savo homaron, two distinct meanings).

So, "instalado Linukson". Since in your example "Linukso" is Esperanticised, "na" is redundant because you could just append the accusative ending instead.

If syntactic constructions as "instalado Linukson" were allowed, infinitive mode would become redundant. Btw. "savi homaron" and "instali Linukson" are simpler than nominalized forms.

Altebrilas:If syntactic constructions as "instalado Linukson" were allowed, infinitive mode would become redundant. Btw. "savi homaron" and "instali Linukson" are simpler than nominalized forms.

It's not quite that simple.

-ad- with the -n ending is done occasionally but it's very rare. I feel like I see it occasionally in old texts, very rarely in modern texts.

PMEG:N-finaĵa objekto ankaŭ povas esti priskribo de aga O-vorto, kvankam tia uzo estas ekstreme malofta: La tirado la ĉaron estis malfacila por la bovo. La ĉaro estas objekto de la tirado. Dankon pro la elekto min. Normale oni tamen uzas de por montri la objekton de aga O-vorto: La tirado de la ĉaro estis malfacila por la bovo. Dankon pro la elekto de mi.

"An object with an N-ending can also be a description of an O-word of action, although that kind of usage is extremely rare: La tirado la ĉaron estas malfacila por la bovo. The cart [ĉaro] is an object of the pulling [tirado]. Dankon pro la elekto min. (Thanks for the electing me). Normally, however, one uses "de" to show the object of an O-word of action: La tirado de la ĉaro estis malfacila por la bovo. Dankon pro la elekto de mi."

Tempodivalse:I can only revert to my standard riposté in these situations:

If you were to propose a reform to some other language (French, Ukrainian etc.), as a single individual with no particular credibility or power behind him, you would be laughed out of the room. "Hey Ukrainians, I've been studying your language and I don't like that you've retained the vocative case. Russian gets away without it just fine. Can't we replace it with the nominative everywhere." You can envision the reaction.

So I can't understand why anyone walks in here and expects to be taken more seriously.

Mark Twain did something like this with German... Of course that hasn't changed anything.
He complained mainly about gender, as far as I know. "Rübe" (turnip) is feminine and "Mädchen" (girl) is neutral, imagine his confusion...