Poruke: 36
Jezik: English
darkweasel (Prikaz profila) 21. srpnja 2010. 20:57:38
aaronibus62:You can do however you want. If you don't see a necessity of adding the accusative on a proper name, leave it out, otherwise add -on or -n depending on how the result sounds. Some use the preposition *na for this but it isn't official yet and many believe it's unnecessary.Seth442:I noticed in Zamenhof's translation of the Bible that, with names ending in a consonant, he attached -on at the end for the accusative.
Also, I've always wondered how to use the accusative on a name that doesn't end with a vowel. Do you just put an n on the end regardless, or do you just ignore the rule in that case?
ekz. David would be Davidon
ex. Dio igis Davidon reĝo super Israelio.
BTW, Israel is Israelo in Esperanto, not *Israelio.
To get back to the original topic: Personally I don't like Esperantizations of names of people! My parents named me Paul so I believe people should call me exactly that in every language including Esperanto. I definitely don't like to be named Paŭlo but if someone who has the same name does, they're free to use this as a kind of nickname.
aaronibus62 (Prikaz profila) 21. srpnja 2010. 21:02:43
Before Native peoples were forcibly assimilated into Anglo culture, some Natives had names transliterated into English, as was the case with Massasoit, Wamsutta and Metacomet (also known as King Phillip), all from 17th-century Massachusetts.
Others had their names fully translated. Best examples I can think of are 1870s Lakota Chief named Sitting Bull and White Cloud... I just found another on Wikipedia whose name was Black Hawk, a close translation of his Native Sauk name
' Makataimeshekiakiak (Mahkate:wi-meši-ke:hke:hkwa), "be a large black hawk")'..
I think most Natives farther west considered the meanings of their names too important and prefered direct translation to any kind of transliteration.
aaronibus62 (Prikaz profila) 21. srpnja 2010. 21:09:21
darkweasel:I stand corrected, though why oh why did he think it was necessary to distinguish between Israelo the nation and Izraelo the man? Crazy since the country was named after the man!
BTW, Israel is Israelo in Esperanto, not *Israelio.
Mi volas diri, ke Zamenhof estis vera 'boba babo' pro tio, sed mi devas memori, ke li ne estis perfekta homo.
erinja (Prikaz profila) 22. srpnja 2010. 02:41:39
aaronibus62 (Prikaz profila) 23. srpnja 2010. 21:17:25
erinja:In most cases, Israelo is the modern land of Israel, whereas Izraelo is the Biblical nation of Israel (that is, the tribe of the Israelites)Some might think they're one and the same, though I think it's better to have a distinction when discussing either ancient or modern history.
erinja (Prikaz profila) 24. srpnja 2010. 00:37:02
I would also say that "Israelo" is more identified with the land, and "Izraelo" with the people.
You can be an Israeli (modern state of 'Israelo') who is a Muslim or a Christian, or a Whatever (not necessarily Jewish). But you can be an Israelite (inhabitant of the Biblical land of 'Izraelo') only if you're a Jew.
In addition, in the Esperanto translation of the Bible, "Izraelo" is used to refer to the entire Jewish people; "Hear O Israel", that kind of thing. The modern term "Israelo" is never used to refer to the Jewish people, wherever they live; it ONLY describes the modern Jewish state.