Meddelanden: 253
Språk: English
razlem (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 02:11:11
Well that's a bit confusing.
There seem to be some odd rules governing the accusative: prepositions that show direction (which should be the allative case by the way), some time durations (but not all apparently?).
From what I can tell, this form of accusative stems from Latin, where it was used in a variety of ways (with only one of those ways being its proper usage). But shouldn't grammar not be based on only one natural language? I thought Zamenhof was trying to avoid irregularity, not inherit it.
There seem to be some odd rules governing the accusative: prepositions that show direction (which should be the allative case by the way), some time durations (but not all apparently?).
From what I can tell, this form of accusative stems from Latin, where it was used in a variety of ways (with only one of those ways being its proper usage). But shouldn't grammar not be based on only one natural language? I thought Zamenhof was trying to avoid irregularity, not inherit it.
razlem (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 02:28:05
I can go on and on about the inefficiencies of Esperanto, but I won't. I got what I came for, and I'm ready to leave. I may continue my study of Esperanto in the future, but for now I'm focusing on other schoolwork.
I wish you all the best, it was fun talking with everyone!
If you want to continue the discussions, just send me a message here or on the Conlang Wiki.
Adiaŭ
I wish you all the best, it was fun talking with everyone!
If you want to continue the discussions, just send me a message here or on the Conlang Wiki.
Adiaŭ
danielcg (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 02:30:57
There's no irregularity in the accusative.
I translate by heart from Jorge Hess's "¿Sabe usted esperanto?" (In Spanish: "Do you know esperanto?"):
"Letter n has three different uses:
"1) It points to the direct object of a transitive verb.
"2) It shows the direction of a movement.
"3) It replaces a preposition."
And that's it. No irregularity here.
The third function of the accusative is optional, and it adds brevity and elegance to the style. However, it is used only when the meaning remains clear.
"Mi revenos du tagojn" is probably not the best example for this function of the accusative, since it could mean either "Mi revenos POST du tagoj" or "Mi revenos DUM du tagoj". If the context does not make clear which of the two I'm intending to say, I'd stick to the preposition.
Regards,
Daniel
I translate by heart from Jorge Hess's "¿Sabe usted esperanto?" (In Spanish: "Do you know esperanto?"):
"Letter n has three different uses:
"1) It points to the direct object of a transitive verb.
"2) It shows the direction of a movement.
"3) It replaces a preposition."
And that's it. No irregularity here.
The third function of the accusative is optional, and it adds brevity and elegance to the style. However, it is used only when the meaning remains clear.
"Mi revenos du tagojn" is probably not the best example for this function of the accusative, since it could mean either "Mi revenos POST du tagoj" or "Mi revenos DUM du tagoj". If the context does not make clear which of the two I'm intending to say, I'd stick to the preposition.
Regards,
Daniel
razlem:Well that's a bit confusing.
There seem to be some odd rules governing the accusative: prepositions that show direction (which should be the allative case by the way), some time durations (but not all apparently?).
From what I can tell, this form of accusative stems from Latin, where it was used in a variety of ways (with only one of those ways being its proper usage). But shouldn't grammar not be based on only one natural language? I thought Zamenhof was trying to avoid irregularity, not inherit it.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 02:31:21
razlem:@ToddSo your "evidence" concerning memorization in fact has nothing to do with memorization, and has no empirical content at all. Not promising.
"And your evidence for this is...? I'll keep asking for evidence as long as you keep presenting your opinions as if they were documented fact."
Basic arithmetic:
SVO < (SVO + OSV + SOV + n for nouns + n for adjectives)
Furthermore, you have misrepresented the situation. Esperanto does not require you to "memorize word orders." You are free to use the order that is convenient to you, within limits (no language has, or can have, completely free word order). So, you don't have to remember whether sentences have to be SVO, or SOV, or whatever. You simply have to remember to use the accusative ending.
""Al" and "je""I didn't say that "al" and "je" denote the accusative. The point is that the accusative ending, -N, has other uses, one of which is to optionally allow these prepositions to be elided.
If the prepositions still exist, then the accusative has not replaced them. Instead of saying "al/je", you've introduced a new grammatical element IN ADDITION to the existing prepositions. In other words, if you can denote the accusative with "al" and "je", why bother putting in an accusative case? It's only more to memorize.
Such other uses are highly irregular- not every language denotes time periods or measurements in accusative. Wouldn't it be easier just to say "two days" rather than "two days(ACC)"? I know what you're saying if you say "Mi revenos du tagoj."No, because in some cases there would be ambiguity not resolved by context. "I'm coming in two days" vs "I'm coming for two days".
We use "je" to specify times and days. "Mi venos je lundo"=I'm coming on Monday. But the -N rule allows us to elide "je" and say "Mi venos lundon."
"But you have been asked again and again in this thread to show (not just assert) that this is due to its real or imagined linguistic defects."Sorry, but you've said nothing that shows that Esperanto's failure to achieve its ambitions is due to its linguistic shortcomings. You haven't even tried. You have only tried to point out its shortcomings, but that does nothing to show that they have held Esperanto back.
See above.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 02:34:13
danielcg:There's no irregularity in the accusative.Indeed, 2 is a particular case of 3, so you could just get by with rules 1 and 3.
I translate by heart from Jorge Hess's "¿Sabe usted esperanto?" (In Spanish: "Do you know esperanto?"):
"Letter n has three different uses:
"1) It points to the direct object of a transitive verb.
"2) It shows the direction of a movement.
"3) It replaces a preposition."
And that's it. No irregularity here.
erinja (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 03:30:35
I think you forgot -n to show measure
...though that could also be construed as an elision of the preposition "je".
At any rate it seems pretty clear to me that razem was making all kinds of judgments about Esperanto grammar and how well it works (or doesn't work) based on a woefully incomplete understanding.
Looks like he isn't as serious about linguistics as he claims to be. Oh well, it's his loss.
...though that could also be construed as an elision of the preposition "je".
At any rate it seems pretty clear to me that razem was making all kinds of judgments about Esperanto grammar and how well it works (or doesn't work) based on a woefully incomplete understanding.
Looks like he isn't as serious about linguistics as he claims to be. Oh well, it's his loss.
razlem (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 03:33:22
"So your "evidence" concerning memorization in fact has nothing to do with memorization, and has no empirical content at all. Not promising."
You have to recognize the different forms. It's not that they 'have' to be, rather that they 'can' be- it can't always be predicted which order the accusative will come in. You have to prepare for the possibility that the syntax could be SOV or OSV or even OVS. With a standard order, you will always know where the direct object will be- there wouldn't be a need to mark it or to think about any other word orders.
'It must be SVO' vs. ('It can be SVO/SOV/OVS/OSV/VSO/VOS' + 'The DO must be marked')
How is this not more to memorize?
For the record: There was another member who posted on this thread who claimed to have difficulty remembering to put the "n" on adjectives and nouns.
"But the -N rule allows us to elide "je" and say "Mi venos lundon.""
But what's the point? If prepositions work just as well, and you're going to include them regardless, why include both the prepositions AND a case?
"You have only tried to point out its shortcomings, but that does nothing to show that they have held Esperanto back."
I can't read minds. I don't know if it is because of these shortcomings that people have decided not to learn Esperanto, or some other reason. There is no concrete method in deciding whether or not to learn a language. As I implied before, it's the impressions and the feelings- the unquantifiable- that motivate people.
"There's no irregularity in the accusative"
It depends how you define accusative. In the broad sense of "direct object", yes, it is irregular. Irregular in purpose rather than in an inflectional sense. Relatively few languages use the accusative to denote directional changes. This is more the purpose of the locative or allative cases.
You have to recognize the different forms. It's not that they 'have' to be, rather that they 'can' be- it can't always be predicted which order the accusative will come in. You have to prepare for the possibility that the syntax could be SOV or OSV or even OVS. With a standard order, you will always know where the direct object will be- there wouldn't be a need to mark it or to think about any other word orders.
'It must be SVO' vs. ('It can be SVO/SOV/OVS/OSV/VSO/VOS' + 'The DO must be marked')
How is this not more to memorize?
For the record: There was another member who posted on this thread who claimed to have difficulty remembering to put the "n" on adjectives and nouns.
"But the -N rule allows us to elide "je" and say "Mi venos lundon.""
But what's the point? If prepositions work just as well, and you're going to include them regardless, why include both the prepositions AND a case?
"You have only tried to point out its shortcomings, but that does nothing to show that they have held Esperanto back."
I can't read minds. I don't know if it is because of these shortcomings that people have decided not to learn Esperanto, or some other reason. There is no concrete method in deciding whether or not to learn a language. As I implied before, it's the impressions and the feelings- the unquantifiable- that motivate people.
"There's no irregularity in the accusative"
It depends how you define accusative. In the broad sense of "direct object", yes, it is irregular. Irregular in purpose rather than in an inflectional sense. Relatively few languages use the accusative to denote directional changes. This is more the purpose of the locative or allative cases.
razlem (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 03:33:46
From now on, just send me messages if possible 
erinja (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 03:47:11
We call -n the "accusative ending" in English because that's its most common use. However Esperanto-language grammers don't necessarily call it that. The most well-known and widely used modern grammar refers to it as a "rolfinaĵo" (role ending), that is, to mark the role of a word in a sentence.
If you are serious about making statements about Esperanto grammar using facts, then you should read a detailed grammar guide. If you read only a simplified guide that has only the most basic information, then details will be missing and you will continue to have an inaccurate idea of how Esperanto grammar works. This is exactly why I suggested studying the language for 6 months or so to see how it works. Not a single thing that you have said so far has indicated to me that you've spent enough time learning Esperanto grammar to make an informed judgment about its strengths and weaknesses. It looks mainly like you've picked up one of those ten-page grammar booklets and you're basing your assessment on that.
This is an excellent grammar to learn from, with explanations and examples: PMEG
I don't really care to convince you of one thing or another but it really bothers me when people make statements without knowing their facts. After you know the facts, sure, make your judgments, and we can agree or disagree and that's fine. But it doesn't put you in a good light when you make statements that are clearly based on a misunderstanding of how things work. You are obviously not interested in learning these details so I won't bother explaining (however if you genuinely want to learn how something works, just send me a private message - I have been a tutor here for years and I am very accustomed to explaining Esperanto grammar to newbies). At any rate I have given you the link to the grammatical reference guide, so I hope you will equip yourself with the facts that have been lacking up to this point.
If you are serious about making statements about Esperanto grammar using facts, then you should read a detailed grammar guide. If you read only a simplified guide that has only the most basic information, then details will be missing and you will continue to have an inaccurate idea of how Esperanto grammar works. This is exactly why I suggested studying the language for 6 months or so to see how it works. Not a single thing that you have said so far has indicated to me that you've spent enough time learning Esperanto grammar to make an informed judgment about its strengths and weaknesses. It looks mainly like you've picked up one of those ten-page grammar booklets and you're basing your assessment on that.
This is an excellent grammar to learn from, with explanations and examples: PMEG
I don't really care to convince you of one thing or another but it really bothers me when people make statements without knowing their facts. After you know the facts, sure, make your judgments, and we can agree or disagree and that's fine. But it doesn't put you in a good light when you make statements that are clearly based on a misunderstanding of how things work. You are obviously not interested in learning these details so I won't bother explaining (however if you genuinely want to learn how something works, just send me a private message - I have been a tutor here for years and I am very accustomed to explaining Esperanto grammar to newbies). At any rate I have given you the link to the grammatical reference guide, so I hope you will equip yourself with the facts that have been lacking up to this point.
erinja (Visa profilen) 15 januari 2011 03:57:48
Oh, I forgot to mention before - No, Esperanto's grammar is not based on any one "natural" language. Why on earth would you want to do that? Esperanto's use of the -n ending differs significantly from Latin's use, and Esperanto's use of -n is probably not exactly like the usage found in any other language in the world. As I said, it's not really an accusative. It is a "role indicator" (rolmontrilo in the PMEG). ONE function of this ending (out of the six or so mentioned by PMEG) is to mark the direct object.