But "al" is not correct, because al implies direction of movement.

Al has always represented metaphorical directedness, as in dankon al vi etc.

there is a genuine risk of misunderstanding if the meanings and specified uses are not set forth well. And as another respondent has remarked, je should only be used as a last resort.

Could you give an example of how alergia je might cause a misunderstanding?

Also, I don't believe that je is truly a last resort as in that case it would practically never be used. Je la dua horo could be replaced with ĉe la dua horo, kapabla je ĉio could be replaced with kapabla pri/inter/kun ĉio, etc.

I was thinking about the use of "je" a few days ago and I reached the conclusion that it should be used a lot more in Esperanto, because if the language tries to be as logical as possible, then maybe "al", "en" and so on should only be used to express a relation in space. In that case, their use would be a lot more restricted, giving much more frequency of use to "je". That seems to be the same idea the original skribanto/skribisto/skribulo/skriba homo had in mind. (I wanted to use these words in Esperanto but I wasn't sure which was the best option, so I leave it to you).

However, "je" seems to have been intended for a very occasional use. The typical examples I encountered that I can remember now are times and belief in God ("je la dua horo" and "kredi je Dio"). In these cases its use seems to be well established in the language. It has also been said that it could be used when no other preposition applies, but that is quite subjective.

I think there are many cases in which prepositions are not very logical, they are rather established by tradition. One of these cases is adjective clauses introduced by said preposition. In this case, one could almost always use "je". But there seem to be many examples which choose another preposition, one with a more specific meaning, which is not so obvious, and the cause of whose use is probably the influence of a national language. That is something that Esperanto generally avoids, since its creator, or those who nowadays feel responsible for its teaching, desire it to be as logical as possible. But not everything can be fixed easily. You cannot always find logic behind everything, and prepositions are very often a good example thereof.

So, I came up three ideas with regards to unclear prepositions in Esperanto.

1) Allow freedom of use
- Pros: no strenuous boring studying is required
- Cons: possible misunderstanding, no unity in Esperanto (therefore: the ideal that the same world speaks exactly the same language would not be totally reached)

2) Expand the use of "je"
- Pros: increased supposed logic to the language
- Cons: a preposition with no real meaning which was thought as only a last resort would be used so often that it would possibly impoverish Esperanto's beauty or style and Zamenhof's intention

3) Write a list of the prepositions that should introduce an adjective phrase for every adjective there is and which should introduce the prepositional phrase for every verb there is. E.g. "alergia al", "pensi pri", and so on.
- Pros: unity of style in the whole Esperanto community, possible more elegant style than resorting always to "je" as the default preposition.
- Cons: it would betray one of Esperanto's ideals, which was its simplicity. This solution would end up in Esperanto requiring a longer time to learn than before and maybe, in it not being so appealing to learn to many potential speakers.

These are my views on the subject. Do you agree? Do you have any other solution? If not, which one would you opt for? Which one do you prefer and why?

I am looking forward to reading your replies.

Thanks as always for your indepth analysis MarcDiaz. As an academic, I enjoy reading what you write. To answer you question, I feel option #1 is the best, as it gives flexibility to speakers from all sorts of linguistic backgrounds and this was one of Zamenhof's goals. Look at the flexibility in syntax with the object identifying affix "n". I think the prepositions and "n" are in the same line of thinking. We as thinking beings will figure out what each other is saying, as so much is already fixed. Signifon ni komprenas.

I still don't see the idea behind using 'je' in time sentences e.g: Mi vidos vin je la sesa. I see a defined time as a figurative location in space and time - arriving at a point in time - and I don't see why it can't be ĉe. Both in and at have a rather intertwined relationship with regard to meaning anyway. At school and in school is not differentiated in Russian (as far as I know).

I personally don't like je because of its vagueness. Very often I don't know what it is independently pointing to, since it is used to translate and render what someone is trying to say in another language, rather than rendering a meaningful sentence within Esperanto.

"Ŝi estas alergia al fragoj" and I wonder whether this is a literal translation from English "She is allergic to strawberries". Shouldn't it be "Ŝi estas alergia je fragoj"? Thank you/dankon

Oni respondas al demando, oni reagas al insulto, oni fidas al iu. So 'al' in Esperanto is used figuratively - not always in a literally spatial way.

Since you might translate 'alergii' as 'esti alergia' - have an allergic reaction (to) - then 'alergii al' seems quite acceptable. But 'alergia je' would also serve.

It might make a difference though if you wanted to say (jokingly) 'I am allergic to Christmas'. Then alergia je Kristnasko might mean something else

Hello PlaidMouse,

Thanks for your kind words.

Option number 1 is the way Zamenhof left it. I do not think he gave a very detailed explanation of how to use prepositions, but only a general idea. There are many people who want to stick to Zamenhof's plans, intentions and ideas no matter what. And these people would probably also prefer option number 1.

However, I have read some opinions in this thread which suggest that prepositions be fixed. And I think that goes more in line with suggestions 2 and 3.

But only time will tell what happens. Will we always use Esperanto exactly as Zamenhof designed it? Will there be some changes? Vocabulary is an area in which there certainly have to be new words, which name the new inventions and ideas of the world to come. But it is also encouraged to be done respecting a few principles, like using affixes when possible.

A change of the use of prepositions would change a deeper system of the language, which would make it quite different from the one which was intended. Therefore, if we are strict with Esperanto's goals, it shouldn't be done. Apparently, some posters are not really that much interested in keeping the language the way it was created, but would welcome some changes and so, my suggestions 2 and 3 should be more interesting to them.

MarcDiaz:
These are my views on the subject. Do you agree? Do you have any other solution? If not, which one would you opt for? Which one do you prefer and why?

I am looking forward to reading your replies.

Never read them. I m sure they are tip-top suggestions, and looking forward to read them when written in Esperanto.

Duko,

I find your contribution to be pointless. What benefit does it have for me to know that you have not read my suggestions? And if you are so interested in people to know that you have not read a part of their posts, why don't you write that to the several posts which you have not read?

Why are you sure that my suggestions are tip-top if you have not read them? How can be sure of something that you do not know?

If you are sure that my suggestions are tip-top, why don't you want to read them? You might learn something interesting or get new ideas.

What difference does it make that the suggestions are written in English or in Esperanto? Does the choice of the language make the suggestions correct or incorrect?

Apparently, you have read the last sentences of my post, because you have quoted them. Have you really made the effort of starting to read my post, then skipping my suggestions when you got there, and then reading only the last questions, while succesfully skipping my suggestions? I find that hard to believe. But if that was true, what was the reason for skipping my suggestions?

Lastly, I have got a suggestion for you. I think it is better to keep quiet than to write meaningless posts. If you want to write anything, try that what you say has a positive influence to the readers.

Please, if you write back, answer each question I asked. Otherwise, communication would not be effective.

Sorry, did my post rub you the wrong way? It was on purpose, to draw your attention about how a post can be rude without saying anything bad per se. You seem to ignore the fact that EO is not a project or a work in progress, but a living language with real people using it. Therefore, you have no obligation and no right to `fix it` for them. Feel free to talk about EO in EN or any language of your choice. Feel free to analyze it and to make predictions etc. But using a `foreign` language to find problems in language X and to give suggestions and solutions to the speakers of language X about how to fix the problems in their own language which you don t use strikes me as inconsiderate. I guess that s the point of my post, that I find your post rude.
I do not read suggestions on how to improve EO if they are not written in EO. Nothing personal against you. Not judging the merits of your ideas, just filtering out the huge mass of noise coming from people who think that there is such thing as a perfect language, and that EO owns it to them to be perfect. It happens all too much and it s boring me to tears.
Gotta go. We live quite near to each other, maybe we meet and have a beer and discuss other things. Or fix Esperanto by using Esperanto.

Please, if you write back, answer each question I asked. Otherwise, communication would not be effective.

As usual, you ignored my questions. You only answered one of my nine questions, but even then, the answer you gave me is debatable, to say the least.

This is the same story over and over again. I could write another post pointing out your many contradictions, omissions and so on, but I am beginning to think that it is a waste of time. I do not think you even deserve that I waste my time on you, since you have not even tried to answer eight of my nine questions, even though I had to write a paragraph specifically to remind you of doing so. Even when I do, it does not seem to work. It is just pointless to ask questions and receive unrelated information. And probably I am expecting too much from you.

We started talking about prepositions. Now you seem to be interested to talk about how you perceived my post as rude. Like I said before, I could give you many arguments. But this is not the point of this thread. I am not really interested in your perception about my post. After my experience, I can't know if you would understand my reply. And I do not think you deserve my attention when you seem to ignore my questions, jump to unrelated topics and write pointless posts the only intention of which is to "rub me the wrong way", like you put it before.

Other members on this forum, like Vestitor, opalo and novatago, to name a few, seem to have a similar attitude to yours and I seriously do not think any of you even deserves my attention, after all the contributions I have seen from you.