I think the idea of "meti" is that your always displacing something, or it was without place to begin with, and thus when you place something, you are putting it to something else. To a location, to a new place, etc.

Lasi on the other hand involves an action which does not emphasise the placing of an object, but rather the action of letting something remain how it is - even if you put it in a new state (e.g. onto a table). "abandoning your hands-on attention", in a way.

I guess one could say "Li metis sur la seĝo la pilkon sur la tablon". In this case we can see who's on what etc. Otherwise, "Li metis la pilkon sur la seĝo" will probably be understood as "He placed a ball on the chair" since the object's destined placement is more important than the subject's positioning , but it just wouldn't be as precise.

(the convoluted example I gave above though could probably better be written "sidante/estante sur la seĝo, li metis la pilkon sur la tablon", or "sur la seĝo, li metis la pilkon sur la tablon" thus avoiding the confusion.)

Erinja - no argument over the corpus statistics - searching 'meti sur' in CorpusEye also throws up an overwhelming incidence of accusative of direction.

However the general point remains valid - there can be some doubtful cases, not just with 'meti sur', but with other verbs and prepositions.

It's the same issue, I think everytime. Is the emphasis on position or motion?

Onklo Zam advised in Lingvaj Respondoj (74) re. 'dubaj kazoj'

uzu ĝin (la akuzativo) ĉiam nur en tiuj okazoj, kie vi vidas, ke ĝi estas efektive necesa: en ĉiuj aliaj okazoj - uzu ĉiam la nominativon.

An interesting Zamenhofan example is 'metis antaŭ mi manĝilaron'. You can feel easily here that it is the position of the cutlery rather than the motion that is the primary foccus.

If you do a corpus search with 'loki' or lokigi' (which more emphasizes position than movement), for cases that can't actually happen in the real world without movement, I think you would find the nominative dominating.

But we weren't talking about loki/lokigi, we were talking about meti. So it's a moot point.

And of course I never said that we ALWAYS use -n with meti. So it's a bit useless to try to disprove my assertion by giving me proof that you don't always need -n, because I never said that you did.

But in the case we were talking about (putting keys on a table) I think historical usage supports use of -n.

So then would "Mi marsxas en la domon" mean "I walk into the house" or would/could also you say "Mi marsxas en al la domon"

sublimestyle:So then would "Mi marsxas en la domon" mean "I walk into the house" or would/could also you say "Mi marsxas en al la domon"

Yes. "Mi marŝas en la domon" does indeed mean that.

You can also use 'al' to indicate the direction, but then the accusative is not needed any more:
"Mi marŝas al en la domo".
This looks like what you proposed. It is never said like so though, because the 'accusative of direction' is very well established for this.

Actually I always find it helpful to consider the accusative a tool to replace a preposition (but mostly 'al'). Accusative and preposition are very similar things, they indicate the role of something in the sentence ('rolmontriloj'), and you can combine them to specify the role more precisely.

Thank you very much for the reply. It really helped.

Its seems the more I think about this one topic the more questions I have about it. Everybody's comments have definitely helped, but I still have some questions. For example could you say "Mi donis gxin vin" (I gave it to you) or could this only be said as "Mi donis gxin al vi" It seems like it would be right both ways, but it also seems like the first could be confusing to what is being given.

With reference to "mi donas ĝin vin", this is -n to show the indirect object; we only use -n to show DIRECT objects in Esperanto.

It's important to keep direct objects and indirect objects straight in your head. The occasional use of -n instead of "al", or vice versa, can add confusion. "Al" and -n are not interchangeable in all circumstances, so you need to learn the rules behind it to make the right choices.

Let me make this clear.

-n shouldn't be used to indicate the indirect object. So in "Mi donis al li la libron", "li" is the indirect object, which should not get -n. "La libro" is the direct object, so it needs -n.

However, I can say "Mi iras al Parizo", or else "Mi iras Parizon" (that second variant is rare today, however). BUT Paris is not the indirect object here! This is -n to show direction of movement, NOT using -n to mark the indirect object. So yes, in some cases you can use -n to replace a preposition, but there are rules that govern it, you can't do it indiscriminately. Just because you see "al" in a phrase, doesn't mean it's correct to drop the "al" and substitute -n. You can do it sometimes but not always.

It depends on the grammatical circumstances. -n has several different uses, and you need to keep those straight as well.

[1] -n to indicate direct object - Mi vidas vin
[2] -n to indicate measurement, usually of time or distance - Mi dormis tri horojn (OR Mi dormis dum tri horoj), "Ĝi longas kvar metrojn"
[3] -n to indicate direction of movement ("iri en la urbo" has a different meaning than "iri en la urbon"; this use of -n is valid only for prepositions that don't inherently show motion, so -n of motion is never used together with prepositions of motion like al and el)
[4] -n to indicate a point in time - "Unu tagon, ŝi venis al mia domo" (OR "En unu tago...")
[5] -n to indicate a position. This is a little arcane but this is another way of substituting for a preposition. You can say "Mi sidis, la brakojn kunmetitaj", or else "Mi sidis, kun la brakoj kunmetitaj". You could assume in this case that the -n variant has an understood verb of which "brakojn" is the object; "Mi sidis, tenante la brakojn kunmetitaj". But at any rate you can get rid of this -n with a preposition.

You can see how in most of these instances, there is a choice to use -n or a preposition. That's why I recommend that beginners use prepositions in cases when you aren't talking about a direct object, instead of using -n. It virtually guarantees that your grammar will be correct, and as you gain experience, you will gradually assimilate correct use of -n. I'm a big believer in learning the basics first, and speaking in a correct but basic way, and then gradually learning the arcane details, rather than trying to learn every single rule governing a small piece of grammar at once. Correct use of -n is one of the more complicated aspects of Esperanto, but there's no need for beginners to stress themselves out by trying to learn every detail about its use from the very beginning.

In my book it lists "supren" as meaning "upwards." When used as an adverb for direction. Is this a typo? Why wouldn't it be "superen?"

Shanemk:In my book it lists "supren" as meaning "upwards." When used as an adverb for direction. Is this a typo? Why wouldn't it be "superen?"

Supr' refers to a physical summit. So supren means towards the summit, i.e. upwards. Super means "above" in the metaphorical sense of authority, as well as position. It isn't a destination, so superen wouldn't have a clear meaning.