Al la enhavo
Respondi

The article "La"

de sublimestyle, 2010-oktobro-25

Mesaĝoj: 64

Lingvo: English

sublimestyle (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-25 17:57:40

I was wondering if there are any rules regarding the article "La" when it's used with geographical nouns.
For example in English one would say without using the article "the"

I am going to Bolivia
I am going to Mount Everest
I am going to Miami
I am going to Lake Erie

Then one would use the article to say

I am going to the United States
I am going to the Nile river
I am going to the Andes
I am going to the Great Lakes

I am sure you could be understood with it or without it. I was just curious if there was any rule.

Pk_JoA (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-25 19:26:16

I don't think so. I've never seen

"Mi iras al la Usono", but yes "Mi iras al Usono".

But, it is just mi opinion. Maybe someone else knows more about this.

jchthys (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-25 19:44:02

Probably:

Mi iras al Bolivio
Mi iras al Ĉomolungmo
(aux: Mi iras al la monto Ĉomolungmo)
Mi iras al Miamo
Mi iras al Eria Lago

So I guess the answer would be that it's pretty much the same as English. If the word like Mount or River is capitalized, you do not include the article. However, if such a word is not capitalized, it is just a common noun cluing you in on what kind of object the proper noun represents.

Does this make sense?

sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-25 20:31:38

I think if you mention explicitly the category of place you have to us 'la', on the other hand if just use the name of the place then you don't.

This is clearer from examples.

Ĉu vi konas Parizon? Ĉu vi konas la urbon Bulonjo.

Mi loĝas en Britujo. Mi loĝas en la Unuiĝinta Regno.

You would normally say 'Have you met John - not 'Have you met the John'.

Of course if there is more than one Paris (I believe there is one in Texas), then you might say mi parolas pri la Parizo en Francujo, ne pri tiu en Texas.

sublimestyle (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-25 23:30:50

sudanglo:I think if you mention explicitly the category of place you have to us 'la', on the other hand if just use the name of the place then you don't.
My sentiments exactly

erinja (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-26 00:33:55

Place names never have "la" in Esperanto. So there is no such thing as "la Usono" even if the name of a place has the local equivalent of "the" in its name. Therefore, we don't say "La Hago" (The Hague), we say simply "Hago". We don't say "la Uniĝinta Reglando", we say "Unuiĝinta Reĝlando" (the United Kingdom).

However some names that are already "foreign" might end up with a form of "the" that has already been incorporated - Las-vegaso, Los-anĝeleso, for example. Technically it would be Vegaso and Anĝeleso, but since in English we behave as if "las" and "los" didn't mean "the", Esperanto also ignores the fact that these parts of Las Vegas and Los Angeles mean 'the', and they are treated as simple two-part names.

sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-26 10:29:21

We don't say "la Unuiĝinta Reĝlando", we say "Unuiĝinta Reĝlando" (the United Kingdom).
You might wish to look in PIV under 'Regno' and see the examples Erinja.

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-26 10:37:54

There's little about this in the standard grammars. I'm prepared to accept, from Erinja's message, that the predominant usage is to omit the article before the names of countries, but I've seen it used before them in Vikipedio, for example la Unuiĝinta Reĝlando occurs in the article on Scotland. La Soveta Unio can be found in the article about the October revolution, while la Unuiĝintaj Ŝtatoj occurs in the one on South Carolina (and PIV 2005 has it as well).

darkweasel (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-26 10:56:53

There's a bit of explanation about using la with proper names at La ĉe propraj nomoj in PMEG.

BTW, IMO writing Las-Vegaso and Los-Anĝeleso in Esperanto is strange. They are not compounds in Esperanto, so I think they are better written as Lasvegaso and Losanĝeleso.

ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2010-oktobro-26 11:54:01

RE This Uniĝinta Reĝlando spoken of, while this is yet another unprofessional use of Google in lieu of CorpusEye and other things I can't stand to use (well, it's all really lack of experience with it) lango.gif:
uniĝinta reĝlando = 47 hits
unuiĝinta reĝlando = 311,000 hits

(CorpusEye gives 1 for uniginta and 3 for unuiginta with "diacritics insensitive" on and "case sensitive" off)

@ Darkweasel:
While I share your reasoning for making them "Lasvegaso" and "Losanĝeleso", it just looks utterly horrid to write them like that. In fact, I can't stand looking at the -o at the end...

Then again, I guess La Anĝeloj and La Herbejoj/Valoj don't quite look as nice either.. But to be honest they're (grammatically, not aesthetically) stupid place names to being, so it's a bit hard to translate anyway lango.gif. Clearly the founders were not very learned or caring for European classical naming tradition, but I guess Angelia and Pratia would sound just as funny as "La Anĝeloj" and "La Herbejoj"...

Reen al la supro