Alkanadi:

Kirilo81:I don't see why Mi iras ĝardenon should be wrong...

Other people will disagree with you.

The problem is this. If ĝardenon is a place then anything can be a place by extension. A garden is a place where you grow food. A table is a place where you eat.

How do we define a place?

Each side holds their own position as self-evident and obvious. Too bad nobody can explain this discrepancy. I must be the first one in history to discover it.

Could it be that by "place" people mean "location". A garden is a location. A table is an object, not a location.

Bemused:Could it be that by "place" people mean "location".

Could be. How do we define a location? A flagpole might be considered a location.

Alkanadi:

Bemused:Could it be that by "place" people mean "location".

Could be. How do we define a location? A flagpole might be considered a location.

It's an object in a location; it marks the location.

Alkanadi:How do we define a location?

This is a fair question IMO, because there are nouns that might equally be considered "objects" as they might be "places".

My own view is there are basically words that are definitely places because location is intrinsic to their meaning (eg "tie", "ekstere", "lernejo", locational words like "loko", "regiono", "distrikto", named places like "Londono" etc), and then there's everything else. And with the latter I think it is quite possible for something to be one or the other, or both, depending on the context.

Take "domo". From one perspective it's an object: a structure made out of bricks and mortar situated within a location, like a city. From another perspective it's a place - the place where you eat, sleep, go home to every day etc, and may find on Google Maps if you type the address in - thus satisfying erinja's criteria.

The same can even be said of a small object like a table ("Where are you sitting?" "Table 5" ).

So the question is valid in my view. But we should note what was pointed out by Miland: the norm in Esperanto nowadays is to use -n like this sparingly, and usually for named places. So something like "iri ĝardenon", while perhaps not grammatically incorrect, should be considered evitinda on stylistic grounds.

Maybe it does not matter what exactly is a location. Here are my thoughts about this matter. I hope my english is understandable.

This is how the N-ending for direction is used with O-words in Esperanto:
[quote=url=http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/rolmontriloj/n/direkto.html#i-2ub]PMEG[/url]][...] oni [...] uzas solan direktan N-finaĵon [...] nur kiam temas pri iro al la interno de io.[/quote]My translation: the N-ending for direction (after O-words) is used only when it comes to going to the interior of something.

That means that there is a difference between these two sentences:
1) Li venis restoracion vestite tiel.
2) Li venis al restoracio vestite tiel.

In the first one the person actually went inside the restaurant. In the second one it is uncertain whether the person is outside or inside a restaurant. In other words:

- "Li venis restoracion vestite tiel" always means: "Li venis en restoracion vestite tiel" (he came in(side) a restaurant dressed like that). But...

- "Li venis al restoracio vestite tiel" means that he came to a restaurant, but in Esperanto "al" does not tell you whether he went in or not (see PMEG: "La rolvorteto al kontraste ne nepre esprimas atingon" ).

Thus: "Li venis min vestite tiel" would always mean "He came in(side) me dressed like that", but never "He came to me dressed like that". Maybe that's why it sounds odd in Esperanto to use the accusative of direction with living beings.

If all of the above is correct, then maybe, as a thumb rule, whenever you see (or try to use) "mova verbo + o-vorto-n" you should consider adding the preposition "en" before "o-vorto-n" in order to check if it still makes sense. For example:

Morgaŭ mi veturos Parizon = Morgaŭ mi veturos en Parizon <-- ok
Li venis restoracion = Li venis en restoracion <-- ok
Li iris ĝardenon = Li iris en ĝardenon <-- ok (... "la kamparano, intencante iri arbaron por dehaki arbojn"; Kabe)
Mi iros vin = Mi iros en vin <-- not ok

Note: mi, ni, vi li, ŝi, ili... count as O-words (see PMEG: "O-vortecaj estas ankaŭ la personaj pronomoj" )

But I think that even if theoretically you could say "la viruso iris min" (="la viruso iris en min" ), it still sounds strange in Esperanto. "La viruso eniris min" sounds ok. ("kaj eniros en ŝin la malbeniga akvo"; Zamenhof).

And lastly, but very important: in modern Esperanto you don't use the accusative of direction with O-words, except almost exclusively with proper names of cities, countries, etc., and only in the sense of going into them (PMEG: N por direkto). Nowadays the use of "al" is very widespread, even for places.

dbob:But I think that even if theoretically you could say "la viruso iris min" (="la viruso iris en min" ), it still sounds strange in Esperanto. "La viruso eniris min" sounds ok. ("kaj eniros en ŝin la malbeniga akvo"; Zamenhof).

Please, not again!
The whole discussion, as useful as the question, how many angels can sit on a needle, started with somebody's assertion that mi iras vin = mi iras al vi is correct (which of course is not).

I won't come back to this, there is actual work with real issues to do.

Kirilo81:...

I just tried to explain why mi iras vin not only is wrong, but sounds wrong as well, from the point of view of someone thinking outside Esperanto. So I decided to share it just in case someone could find it useful. Anyway, you are absolutely right. Enough of this.

thyrolf:...

You deleted your comment before I could quote it. Pronouns aren't locations even though they are a noun. Technically, I agree with you but there seems to be a consensus that this is not allowed.

tommjames:Take "domo". From one perspective it's an object: a structure made out of bricks and mortar situated within a location, like a city. From another perspective it's a place...

Exactly. For those who say that a house can only be a location and is not an object, how small does the house have to be before it stops being a location. What about a doll house? What about a dog house?

If a garden is a location/place then anything can be.

So the question is valid in my view. But we should note what was pointed out by Miland: the norm in Esperanto nowadays is to use -n like this sparingly, and usually for named places.

Yes, It seems best to use prepositions instead of the accusative when speaking Modern Standard Esperanto.

I found this example. Unfortunately, I could not find someone's room on Google maps. Maybe a better definition of a place/location is needed.

Is this a mistake?

"The accusative "-n" after a preposition shows motions toward."

Mi iris en la ĉambron. (into the room)
Mi promenas ekster la domon. (to the outside of)
Link