Miland:

Alkanadi:why is it okay to say Mi iras al besto if an animal cannot be a place?

Because al here means towards, rather than occupying the same location as the animal.

I will take your word for it but this seems like splitting hairs.

Mi iras beston <-- This is incorrect because the accusative of direction can only work with things and places. An animal is not a thing.
Mi iras al besto <--- This is correct because an animal is the direction of the action.

With regards to the accusative of direction, where do we draw the line between what nouns can be used and what nouns can't be used?

Alkanadi:Mi iras beston <-- This is incorrect because the accusative of direction can only work with things and places. An animal is not a thing.

No. This is incorrect because the accusative of direction can only be used with places, and an animal isn't a place.

A preposition indicating location could indicate a place but you don't have any prepositions here.

Mi iras al besto <--- This is correct because an animal is the direction of the action.

With regards to the accusative of direction, where do we draw the line between what nouns can be used and what nouns can't be used?

You use the accusative of direction with places, like I'm pretty sure I said on the first page of this thread. If your noun is not a place, don't use an accusative of direction. People aren't places. Animals aren't places. Tables aren't places. These nouns may LOOK like places if you have a preposition that indicates a place, but in that case it's the preposition indicating the place and has nothing to do with the actual noun that was used.

You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Kirilo81:

Alkanadi:2, What is the different between these two sentences?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi

The difference is that the second sentence doesn't make sense.

Are these examples from the Tekstaro correct?

1) [...] li la postan fojon venis ĉe ni por alporti laboron.
2) [...] mi ĵus diris, ke venis ĉe ni sorĉisto.

Is it possible that, in those given examples, "venis" does not carry the notion of movement, expressing some kind of "aperis ĉe ni"?

A possible example supporting this idea is the following (also from Tekstaro):
"Fernando povis rakonti pri tiu temo tion, kio venis en lia kapo".

Here I would expect "kio venis en lian kapon". Or is it really some kind of error, and it should be "venis ĉe nin" and "venis en lian kapon"?

dbob:

Kirilo81:

Alkanadi:2, What is the different between these two sentences?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi

The difference is that the second sentence doesn't make sense.

Are these examples from the Tekstaro correct?

1) [...] li la postan fojon venis ĉe ni por alporti laboron.
2) [...] mi ĵus diris, ke venis ĉe ni sorĉisto.

Thank you. I wanted to bring up this point myself however I didn't want to overwhelm the forum with too many questions.

What is the different between these two sentences?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi

erinja:If your noun is not a place, don't use an accusative of direction. People aren't places. Animals aren't places.

Why can we say Mi iras al besto and mi iras al homo. Doesn't al indicate a direction?

You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

I wasn't trying to make this hard on you. I can't accept things on surface value. I need to know this information in case I am a translator for the United Nations. I don't want to translate someone wrong and then get fired.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Albert Einstein

Alkanadi:What is the different between these two sentences?
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi

The first one (because of the accusative) emphasises movement in a direction, while the second emphasizes position, as PMEG shows.

Miland:The first one (because of the accusative) emphasises movement in a direction, while the second emphasizes position, as PMEG shows.

Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin <--- I will come in your direction.
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi <--- I will come to your position.

Again, this feels like splitting hairs.

Since Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin describes direction, doesn't that mean that it is the accusative of direction?

Alkanadi:

Miland:The first one (because of the accusative) emphasises movement in a direction, while the second emphasizes position, as PMEG shows.

Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin <--- I will come in your direction.
Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi <--- I will come to your position.

Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin --> tomorrow i will be on the way to your position (i will come to you)

morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vi --> tomorrow i will come at your position
(t.e. tomorrow i will come, already being very near to you; to be honest, this sounds a little bit strange thing to me)

Alkanadi:Again, this feels like splitting hairs.

You asked the question. The answer may call for fine distinctions.

Alkanadi:Since Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin describes direction, doesn't that mean that it is the accusative of direction?

Not of vi, but ĉe vi, i.e. where you live.

Miland:

Alkanadi:Again, this feels like splitting hairs.

You asked the question. The answer may call for fine distinctions.

Alkanadi:Since Morgaŭ mi venos ĉe vin describes direction, doesn't that mean that it is the accusative of direction?

Not of vi, but ĉe vi, i.e. where you live.

Mia supozo:

"al" estas prepozicio, kiu jam en si mem havas la ideon de movado al iu celo. Pro tio:
--> mi iras al vi.

"ĉe" estas prepozicio, kiu en si mem havas la ideon de fiksa loko. Pro tio:
--> mi iras ĉe vin. (malgraŭ tio, ke mi persone ne uzus tiun esprimon)

"Mi iras ĉe vi" laŭ mi tradukiĝas "mi iras, dum mi estas tre proksime de vi", kiu unuarigarde ne havas bonan sencon.

.

La prepozicio "el" same enhavas la ideon de movado, do "Mi iras el la arbaro"

(tamen ĝi estas multfaceta prepozicio, se mi bone scias: Papero estas farita el ligno. K.a.)

La prepozicio "en" enhavas ambaŭ ideojn, pro tio la akusativo estas necesa por indiki direkton:

"Mi iras en la domo": Mi ekz. iras de ĉambro al ĉambro, aŭ la domo havas grandan salonon, en kiu mi marŝas cirkle.

"Mi iras en la domon": Mi estas ekster la domo, kaj post la irado mi estas en la domo.

La prepozicio "for" uzeblas en ambaŭ sencoj:
"Mi estas for de vi". Mi estas en certa distanco de vi.

"Li kuras for de la domo." Unue li estas apud la domo, poste li estas en certa distanco. (Ĉu eblas: "li kuras for la domon"?)

Sed ankaŭ eblas: "Li kuras foren". Do li kuras tien, kie li estas en certa distanco.

.

O, it's the english forum again. So:

I suppose:

"al" is a preposition, which in itself has the idea of movement to a certain aim. Therefore:
"Mi iras al vi" I go to you.

.

"Ĉe" is a preposition, which in itself has the idea of a fixed place. Therefore
"Mi iras ĉe vin" I go to near you. (Even if I wouldn't use this Esperantoan expression)

.

The preposition "el", similiar, has the idea of movement, therefore: "Mi iras el la arbaro". I go to out of the wood.

(but "el" is a multifaceted preposition, if I know correctly: "Papero estas farita el ligno", paper is made of wood).

.

The preposition "en" has both the ideas, therefore the accusative is necessary to indicate direction:

"mi iras en la domo", I go in the house, meaning f.e. i walk from room to room or i walk circles in the big hall.

"mi iras en la domon", I go into the house, meaning that first i am outside the house and in the end i am inside the house.

.

The preposition "for" is useable in both senses: "Mi estas for de vi" I am in a certain distance of you.

"Li kuras for de la domo" First he is around the house, in the end he is in a certain distance from the house. (Is it possible to say "Mi kuras for la domon"?)

But it's also possible to say: "Li kuras foren", he runs to a place, which is in a certain distance.