erinja: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.

Essentials of Latin Grammar

"Grammatical sleuthing"

EDIT: I put the hyperlink into a link for this post and for the following response, so that all text on the page can be easily read --Erin

razlem:

erinja: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.

Essentials of Latin Grammar

"Grammatical sleuthing"

I'm not sure exactly what I'm meant to be looking for randomly jumping in here , but automatically the big differences between Latin and Esperanto's "accusative cases" is that Latin's often takes a variety of roles depending on the prepositions being used, and Esperanto's accusative case after a preposition signifies movement to that object (en domon (into the house), hejmen (to home), sur tablon (onto the table)).

Esperanto's accusative case seems to have a mixture of global elements in the way it is used, although I doubt Zam planned that in the slightest since, out of all the languages he did know, it seems most likely that he was inspired by European languages. Ironically, by regularising its use, he may have created something more international (well, the accusative is by definition international, but not all use an accusative marker in various situations).

I just will never understand how so many European languages ended up being so damn irregular If only there were tones in every European language, then we'd be used to irregular nonsense AND tonal nonsense

you can also use -n to indicate a specific time either once or regularly.

Mi revenos lundon.
I will come back on Monday.

Mi iras lunden.
I go (there) on mondays (every monday).

Generally it's unproductive to make huge changes to complex systems. Maybe we could build our cities to be more efficient by burning them to the ground and rebuilding them perfectly. Maybe software houses could do rewrites periodically.

However it's almost never worth it. Top-down designers miss the tiny parts that make up the whole. Incremental tiny steps is the way forwards.

If you have an innovation for Esperanto, then get good at using the language and use your small change. If it's a good one then people will pick it up and start using it.

Trying to get everyone to migrate overnight to new super system X is unproductive as there's too many of these propositions.

Genjix:
Mi iras lunden.
I go (there) on mondays (every monday).

No. -en is for directions.

darkweasel:

Genjix:
Mi iras lunde.
I go (there) on mondays (every monday).

No. -en is for directions.

I just checked, and the -n isn't needed there. You're right.

So really the -n here is another general case of replacing the proposition.

je lundo -> lundon

I read the link and at any rate, I studied Latin for four years, so I have a good understanding of how it works. I beg you to take the time to learn Esperanto grammar thoroughly if you want to understand how it works. It seems you do not understand, if you think it works exactly like Latin.

The Esperanto -n ending does not behave like the Latin accusative. Some of the functions are similar, as the text of the link notes. But here are a few differences that jump out at you (at least they jump out when you know Esperanto grammar):

- Prepositions governed by the accusative. In a language where a preposition is governed by a grammatical part of speech, then the word following that preposition has that part of speech. So if "inter" is governed by the accusative, then the word following "inter" must be in the accusative case. Esperanto has NO prepositions governed by the accusative. Nouns following a preposition, by default, have a simple -o ending (or -oj, as the case may be). In certain very limited cases, a noun following a preposition that doesn't normally indicate movement (such as en = in) may be given the -n ending, to indicate movement. This is never done with prepositions (such as al and el) that indicate movement by definition. Therefore = "en la domo" = "in the house"; "en la domon" = "into the house"

- In Esperanto -n can replace the use of a preposition, in cases where clarity allows it. This can bring us to uses of -n that would make no sense in Latin. For example, "Li proksimiĝis, la manon etendita" (He came close, with [his] hand extended) This use of -n is very common with body parts in particular, and the -n on "manon" is replacing "kun"; that is, we could also have said this sentence as "Li proksimiĝis, kun la mano etendita". This is one of Esperanto's strengths, that you can say something in many ways. Sometimes you could say a phrase of direction in as many as three ways - with an adverb of direction, with -n, or with a preposition.

I am going to Paris =
Mi iras Parizen
Mi iras Parizon
Mi iras al Parizo

Clarity is always the key. You can't substitute -n for a preposition willy nilly; you have to make sure that the sentence is going to have a clear meaning before you do it. We have a variety of grammatical forms to choose from, and we choose the forms based on elegance and clarity.

I read these differently:
Mi iras Parizen
Repeated activity. I go to paris (every so often).

Mi iras Parizon
I am going to Paris (right now).

Genjix:I read these differently:
Mi iras Parizen
Repeated activity. I go to paris (every so often).

Mi iras Parizon
I am going to Paris (right now).

Why? I don't see how the choice how to express "to Paris" can decide if it's a repeated or one-time action.

"It seems you do not understand, if you think it works exactly like Latin."

I never said it did. I said it stemmed from Latin. Which is obviously the case, because absolutely no other language uses the accusative like this.

I understand (roughly) how it works, and I never said it was dysfunctional, but there are clearer, more linguistically correct ways of denoting roles in a sentence. But this isn't something I was prepared to discuss. I wanted to know why there is an accusative in a self-named neutral and international language.

razlem:"It seems you do not understand, if you think it works exactly like Latin."

I never said it did. I said it stemmed from Latin. Which is obviously the case, because absolutely no other language uses the accusative like this.

If by "like this" you mean the way Latin uses it for the sense of direction toward, you're wrong. All the Slavic languages (the ones that still have cases, that is) use it thus, as does German (static location in German uses the Dative and in the Slavic languages, the Prepositional/Locative, or else the Instrumental, depending on the preposition)