Till sidans innehåll
Svara

Names and Accusative

av ehanson, 7 april 2008

Meddelanden: 13

Språk: English

ehanson (Visa profilen) 7 april 2008 22:05:50

Please forgive my ignorance but what's the best way to handle names that don't end in -o and the accusative case?

RiotNrrd (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 01:21:43

I personally treat proper names as nonmodifiable, and therefore do not use the accusative even in those cases where it would be used were a proper name not part of the mix.

I've seen people tack the accusative on the end of names. However, some (maybe even most) names aren't really suited to receiving an -n without also artificially turning them into something they aren't (i.e., a word with an -o at the end).

I've also seen people use the unofficial "na" ("Mi amas na RiotNrrd"), but I don't much care for that method.

If you don't use the accusative with names, there is an added ambiguity, in that the direct objects aren't explicit any more. But I think in most cases the context makes it clear.

pianopimp27 (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 02:22:43

I think its a personal preference. I personally like the -ĉjo and -njo for male and female, so I call myself (luke) Luĉjo, which makes accusative easy. A lot of names don't work well like that, though. Here I esperanto-ize the name and add an o or a to the end, based on the gender. (Meghan= Megana, Matthew =Mateo). Then, finally, for names that cannot be esperantoized , I just say the name regularly, and use "je" for accusative. I'm not sure of the official status of using 'je' for accusative, I know can change 'je' phrases into accusative, so I take that as allowing the opposite. I wouldn't say "Mi deziras je pomo," but if you aren't able to put a -n on, why not?

eb.eric (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 03:37:17

Here's an article about naismo (the use of na as a preposition to indicate the direct object when the accusitive prefix doesn't work).

http://lingvakritiko.com/2007/08/21/pri-la-na-ismo...

I personally like it, but as a beginner-intermediate Esperanto speaker I don't use it. I guess since it's against the fundamento it's more than frowned upon.

In cases where there is significant ambiguity and it's not too hard to pronounce, adding -on to a proper name doesn't hurt, does it?

sergejm (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 04:19:22

It is better find some word, what can accept accusative ending and what you can put before the word what can't have accusative ending.
Instead of "Mi amas na RiotNrrd" skribu "Mi amas s-ron RiotNrrd".

RiotNrrd (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 04:19:43

I did forget to include that my way of handling names is indeed just my preference, and that I'm not saying that's the way it should be done by everyone. I don't think that there is an official standard, so it all boils down to individual choice.

My own preference stems from the fact that it always strikes me a bit strange when my own name gets changed into something else that isn't my name, by someone else. Since I prefer to be referred to by my actual name, I just follow the "Golden Rule" and don't change the names of other people either. Not that I never have. Just that I won't any more.

But that's just my choice.

RiotNrrd (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 04:26:15

sergejm:Instead of "Mi amas na RiotNrrd" skribu "Mi amas s-ron RiotNrrd".
I personally would just say "Mi amas RiotNrrd" (not that I'm trying to be a narcissist - it's just an example!). In a strict sense, it is completely ambiguous (and ungrammatical). It is not possible to tell who is doing and who is getting done to.

But, I assume that in situations like that, it is safe to fall to a default Subject-Verb-Object interpretation, especially if the context of the statement supports that meaning. It is not a guarantee that it will be correct, since any word order is legitimate. But SVO is the most common order (and one that Zamenhof himself recommended, if I remember correctly), and so seems a reasonable choice.

Another way to think of it, also, is to look at the structure of the sentence logically. You can't tell by looking at "RiotNrrd" whether it is in the accusative or not. But you CAN tell by looking at "mi". In that sentence, one of the two words ("RiotNrrd" or "mi") HAS to take the accusative. "Mi" obviously didn't - assuming the speaker didn't make a mistake - and therefore has to be the subject. Thus "RiotNrrd" must be the direct object, by process of elimination.

The opposite meaning being conveyed by "Min amas RiotNrrd", it still being just as clear - actually more clear - which has the accusative and, logically, which does not.

mnlg (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 07:55:33

RiotNrrd:Another way to think of it, also, is to look at the structure of the sentence logically. You can't tell by looking at "RiotNrrd" whether it is in the accusative or not. But you CAN tell by looking at "mi". In that sentence, one of the two words ("RiotNrrd" or "mi") HAS to take the accusative. "Mi" obviously didn't - assuming the speaker didn't make a mistake - and therefore has to be the subject. Thus "RiotNrrd" must be the direct object, by process of elimination.
This is exactly what I suggest to my students. The only case still not covered is "mnlg vidas RiotNrrd". I do not have a personal preference for how to solve this; it depends on the situation. There are many good suggestions in this thread, and with the exception of "na" (and its equivalent "on", proposed by yet another sect of reformers okulumo.gif) I employ them all. Also sometimes I might rearrange the sentence a bit (RiotNrrd estis tie; mnlg vidis lin, kaj...).

In writing I might also add an -n to the object, separated by a dash or a colon (mnlg vidas RiotNrrd:n), but I'm not sure I would do that in a formal letter.

awake (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 11:11:27

mnlg:
RiotNrrd:Another way to think of it, also, is to look at the structure of the sentence logically. You can't tell by looking at "RiotNrrd" whether it is in the accusative or not. But you CAN tell by looking at "mi". In that sentence, one of the two words ("RiotNrrd" or "mi") HAS to take the accusative. "Mi" obviously didn't - assuming the speaker didn't make a mistake - and therefore has to be the subject. Thus "RiotNrrd" must be the direct object, by process of elimination.
This is exactly what I suggest to my students. The only case still not covered is "mnlg vidas RiotNrrd". I do not have a personal preference for how to solve this; it depends on the situation. There are many good suggestions in this thread, and with the exception of "na" (and its equivalent "on", proposed by yet another sect of reformers okulumo.gif) I employ them all. Also sometimes I might rearrange the sentence a bit (RiotNrrd estis tie; mnlg vidis lin, kaj...).

In writing I might also add an -n to the object, separated by a dash or a colon (mnlg vidas RiotNrrd:n), but I'm not sure I would do that in a formal letter.
I'm also opposed to the use of na (or on) for this purpose. It's redundant. We already have a preposition, je, which can be used to show relationships when other prepositions don't have a meaning which suffices. Simply saying "Mlng vidis je RiotNerd" is sufficient to clarify the meaning. Not only that, there's consistency with how the preposition is used otherwise (to replace the accusative ending). For example, we often see "Mi venos lundon" and "Mi venos je lundo" used interchangeably. And finally, this useage doesnt require any change to the language (because no change is needed).

I used to just tack an -o or an -on onto people's names when I needed to indicate subject/objective case, but it was pointed out to me that in some languages, that can turn a common male name into a common female variant of the name (and perhaps vice verse in other languages). This could cause some people to be offended. Also, I think it's a bit presumptuous to alter someone else's name. Therefore, I settled on the use of je as my preferred method.

mnlg (Visa profilen) 8 april 2008 11:58:20

awake:Simply saying "Mlng vidis je RiotNerd" is sufficient to clarify the meaning.
It is a good idea indeed; my only concern is that "je" is very generic, and its more common usage involves determination of time or subject (e.g. mi kredas je tio). Even though I would perhaps imagine that "je" points to a direct object in "mnlg vidas je RiotNrrd", I think my very first, instinctive interpretation would be more along the lines of "mnlg, while-in-a-spatial-or-temporal-relation-to RiotNrrd, is seeing".

However I think this je-solution has potential to catch on. We'll see.

Tillbaka till toppen