Skip to the content
Reply

use of "al"

by mfar, November 22, 2015

Messages: 6

Language: English

mfar (User's profile) November 22, 2015, 5:01:18 PM

can anyone explain why "al" is so prevalent? as in "donu al mi la libron". or "mi trancxis al mi la fingron".

erinja (User's profile) November 22, 2015, 7:39:07 PM

Some languages mark a direct object differently from the indirect object. Some languages use a preposition instead. Esperanto uses a preposition.

English also uses a preposition in many cases, just not quite so frequently.

Think of the sentence "Give it to me". You wouldn't say "Give it me" (at least not in standard dialects of English).

If my sentence is "Give a dog", how do you know whether the meaning is "Give [something] to a dog" or "Give a dog [to someone]"? The preposition "to", or "al" in Esperanto, tells us the correct interpretation without having to rely heavily on context. In some cases it can be left out but in other cases you need to have it in because it makes the meaning clearer. You could certainly say "Mi tranĉis mian fingron" but in some cases using the al form adds clarity. It is almost a combination of Mi tranĉis min and Mi tranĉis la fingron. It's a change in emphasis, at least.

mfar (User's profile) November 22, 2015, 8:41:28 PM

Thanks erinja...I need to think about this....

erinja (User's profile) November 22, 2015, 9:02:35 PM

Put it this way, there is a clear alternative for your finger example, but for the other example, Donu min la libron would not be too clear. Using the n ending for an indirect object is sometimes done but almost never when there is also a direct object. That's a common use of al and other prepositions, when otherwise you'd have two n endings in a row with different meanings. You can sometimes use n to substitute for a preposition but it isn't always good choice and you need to be judicious about it.

So:
Venu la 10an de julio = venu je la 10a de julio
Venu al Parizo = venu Parizon

Venu Parizon la 10an = bad form. You'd want to include je or al (or both).

Donu al mi kukon je la 10a de julio = clear
Donu min kukon la 10an = unclear

sudanglo (User's profile) November 23, 2015, 10:23:26 AM

It is actually quite difficult to think of a sentence where if both the indirect object and the direct object were marked with the accusative, the meaning wouldn't be apparent from one's knowledge of the world.

Donu min la libron would have to mean give the book to me and not give me to the book because one doesn't make presents to books.

However, Esperanto prefers to make explicit the indirect object in such cases.

Perhaps, in a slave market, there would be a genuine ambiguity if you said donu ŝin lin. (give her to him or give him to her?)

PS Notice how with explicit marking of the indirect object you can vary the order for stylistic reasons.

So both Donu al mi la libron and Donu la libron al mi are possible - in English only 'Give me the book' is possible, you can't say 'Give the book me'.

erinja (User's profile) November 23, 2015, 4:54:34 PM

It's not that you can't figure it out, it's that it just isn't that clear, so it's better just to make it clear in the first place rather than making your listener or reader parse it out.

The whole point of the language is clear communication.

If you're going to ignore the clarity issue then you might as well say, fine, no accusative.

Doni mi kuko. Everyone gets it from word order, right? You can understand it even with mistakes and missing the right grammatical markers? But it isn't really clear, not clear like "Donu al mi kukon"

Back to the top