Metsis:I have come to understand this (scilicet: the lack of marking essive and translative case) is not perceived as an issue by speakers of the European Indo-European languages, but I am yet to be convinced how it is with others.

I want to expand this topic a bit to three different concepts: (A) having characteristics, (B) being in a state and (C) entering a state.

Esperanto doesn't distinguish between A and B. Spanish and some (¿all?) Slavic languages do.

Ĝi estas verda.

This can mean both A, as in "La greso estas verda", and B "Tiuj bananoj estas verdaj". In Spanish you use two different verbs for both cases: "El zacate es (< ser) verde" vs "Estos bananos están (< estar) verdes". In Russian there is a similar difference expressed by choosing either the short or the long form of the adjective, e.g. angry/mean: “Он зол” vs “Он злой”.

Now about the essive/translative issue and your question about how speakers of non-Indo-European see this, I have to cite Q’eqchi’, the only non-IE language I speak (have ).

Q’eqchi’ only has two cases: the ergative (marking the subject of a transitive clause; this case only exists for animate nouns [1], as it requires agency, which itself requires animacy) and the absolutive (marking the subject of an intransitive clause and the object of a transitive clause; this case exists for all nouns). However, the idea of essive/translative might be comparable to stative/inchoative predicates.

1) Raxeb’ li tul. = [GREEN-3PlStative] [det] [BANANA]
2) Xe’raxo’ li tul. = [past-3PlAbsolutive-GREEN-inchoative] [det] [BANANA]

The first one means "The bananas are in a green state." It does not mean that bananas are green fruit (which would be a characteristic (A) and not a state (B) ). The second one means "The bananas have turned green", i.e. they switched state (C).

3) Xwileb’ q’ani tul. = [past-1SgErgative-SEE-3PlAbsolutive] [YELLOW-attributive] [BANANA]
4) Xwileb’ tul raxeb’. [past-1SgErgative-SEE-3PlAbsolutive] [BANANA] [GREEN-3PlStative]

The third one means “I saw bananas which have the characteristics of being yellow" [2], i.e. "I saw bananas of the yellow kind/type/species". This is a characteristic (A). The forth one means "I saw bananas which are in the state of being green", i.e. we don't know which kind of bananas those are, but we know they aren't ripe yet. This is a state (B).

Q’eqchi’ makes a three-way distinction between A, B and C. And the use of stative predicates vs inchoative predicates might be comparable to the concept of essive case vs translative case. Finnish uses nominal grammar for this, while Q’eqchi’ uses verbal grammar, but different languages encode different concepts differently.

Although, while the translative might map to C, I am not sure if the essive reflects A or B. The term "essive" (< esse, to be) sounds more like A to me. I don't know. You tell me, please. How would you phrase (1), (2), (3) and (4) in Finnish?

- - - -

[1] This is why in Mayan languages you cannot express nonsensical statements like "Guns kill people" or "The stone broke the window." Guns and stones cannot deliberately act, so they cannot kill anyone or break anything.

[2] We have several species of bananas, among those are yellow bananas (es: bananos, kek: tul) and red bananas (es: majunches, kek: chaatul, which doesn't mean red banana, but ashen banana, don't ask me why).

Esperanto doesn't distinguish between A and B.

If I'm not mistaken - which I very well might be - it kind of does, though, the way English does, doesn't it?

The grass is green. Because it's been watered, because it's been fertilized, etc. State.
Grass is green. Because it contains chlorophyll. Characteristic.

Doesn't Esperanto do basically the same thing?

La greso estas verda.
Greso estas verda.

To me they map straight across, but that might be because I speak English and am prone to interpreting things that way. Of course, because of the lack of an indeterminate article, the second one technically means "A grass is green", which may not be precisely what is desired.