I'm sure I will eventually get use to it, but I really have a hard time knowing when and where to place the -n. I've read different things on it, but I never really feel comfortable knowing that most likely I'll be wrong.

I do know in very basic sentences where to place it, for example, "Birdo kaptas insekton." I know that the bird is doing the capturing, and the insect is receiving the capturing. However, if I were to say "In life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness, we all must make difficult and life altering choices." I would have no idea where to put the -n, I would assume after "choices"

But it makes me wonder, how important is the -n, really?
If I said "mi amas vi," doesn't that imply the same meaning as "mi amas vin? I can see that in some languages things are said differently, for example, we say "it's a red ball" but in French we say "it's a ball red" but I know of no language that would said "you love me" which would mean "I love you," it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Like I said, I'm sure eventually I'll get use to it, I just wonder if you don't use the -n ... at all, if people would really be that confused. I have been in the chat room once, and everything I said (which wasn't very much) was "the -n goes here not there" but obviously they still got what I meant if they could correct what it said.

Or maybe I'm just too lazy

:/ same. Sometimes I can see if one is missing, but sometimes I cant.

What if I say "mi iras al laborejon", do I say "laborejo" or "laborejon"
I'm not sure after the "al"... and this goes for some other words too.

What if the bird caught the inseck with an apple?
birdoj kaptis la insekton kun pomon?

Jes, aux ne?

Mathieux:I'm sure I will eventually get use to it, but I really have a hard time knowing when and where to place the -n. I've read different things on it, but I never really feel comfortable knowing that most likely I'll be wrong.

I do know in very basic sentences where to place it, for example, "Birdo kaptas insekton." I know that the bird is doing the capturing, and the insect is receiving the capturing. However, if I were to say "In life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness, we all must make difficult and life altering choices." I would have no idea where to put the -n, I would assume after "choices"

You're making the "difficult and life altering choices", so all of that will be in the accusative. Thus:
En vivo, libereco kaj la serĉado de/por feliĉo*, ni ĉiuj devas fari malfacilajn kaj vivŝanĝantajn elektojn (see Daniel's translation)

But it makes me wonder, how important is the -n, really?
If I said "mi amas vi," doesn't that imply the same meaning as "mi amas vin? I can see that in some languages things are said differently, for example, we say "it's a red ball" but in French we say "it's a ball red" but I know of no language that would said "you love me" which would mean "I love you," it just doesn't make much sense to me.

You won't often make a misunderstanding if you forget the N on the odd occasion, since one can tell from context, but it's important enough to strive to not forget it For example, to address someone and then say "mi amas vi", depending where they are from (Western Europe for example), that shouldn't cause to much problems since they can get that you probably mean "I love you", and you'll just look like a beginner. However, depending on the culture of the listener you could effectively be asking "do you love me" or "you love me" as if it were a fact, and that would be very embarassing and possibly cause offence! .

Especially since it's not too rare to hear "vin amas mi" (stressing the love and the "you", perhaps the speaker is afraid to admit that it's they who is doing the loving), or "vin mi amas". (stressing the "you" and "me", perhaps to stress that it's their relationship, and then stating the state of the relationship (love, as opposed to hate - someone who want's to let it be known there's clearly feelings, but what kind they want to leave till last, maybe they aren't sure)).

Like I said, I'm sure eventually I'll get use to it, I just wonder if you don't use the -n ... at all, if people would really be that confused. I have been in the chat room once, and everything I said (which wasn't very much) was "the -n goes here not there" but obviously they still got what I meant if they could correct what it said.

Or maybe I'm just too lazy

It depends - sometimes you'll find people with bad English, and you'll know what they're actually trying to say. Othertimes you'll assume someone has good english and hear something they say and go "hey, that's offensive/strange/plain incorrect etc, you're an idiot", before finding out "oh, sorry, you sounded like you speak fluent English so I assumed you meant to say (offensive/stupid thing)"

Better safe then sorry, eh? Don't worry though, you'll definitely get used to it, much quicker than you'll realise. I felt the same two, three years back, but now I only rarely forget the accusative when I'm lost in thoughts and forget what I'm writing about, just like English (only instead of the accusative I forget other things in English ).

Hi, Mathieux.

Yes, the accusative is really important. But trust me, a day will come, when you will use it naturally and without effort. Of course, you may make an occassional mistake, but in honesty, don't we make them also in our native languages?

Let's begin with the easy phrase, then we'll go on with the difficult one.

"Mi amas vi" doesn't make sense in Esperanto, and the fact that "vi" is at the end of the phrase adds nothing to our understanding of it.

All these combinations are equally correct in Esperanto:

Mi amas vin
Mi vin amas
Amas mi vin
Amas vin mi
Vin mi amas
Vin amas mi

In each of these phrases, I am the one who loves and you are one who is loved. If it weren't for the accusative, we would not know which is the subject and which is the object.

The accusative gives us much more (though not absolute) freedom to change the word order, which gives us great possibilities for emphasis and style effects.

E.g.: "Vin mi amas" emphasizes the loved person, and would be the answer a man would give to a woman asking "Do you love me or her?"

Now let's go on to the more difficult phrase.

"En vivo, libero, kaj strebo al feliĉo, ni ĉiuj devas fari malfacilajN kaj vivoŝanĝajN elektojN" (only one out of several possible translations)

Take into account that, unlike in English, adjectives must accord in number and case with the nouns they are related to.

Keep up the good work, and ask us about whatever doubt you may have. I will answer all your questions (as long as "I don't have the slightest idea" is considered an answer).


Regards,

Daniel

Mathieux:I'm sure I will eventually get use to it, but I really have a hard time knowing when and where to place the -n. I've read different things on it, but I never really feel comfortable knowing that most likely I'll be wrong.

I do know in very basic sentences where to place it, for example, "Birdo kaptas insekton." I know that the bird is doing the capturing, and the insect is receiving the capturing. However, if I were to say "In life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness, we all must make difficult and life altering choices." I would have no idea where to put the -n, I would assume after "choices"

But it makes me wonder, how important is the -n, really?
If I said "mi amas vi," doesn't that imply the same meaning as "mi amas vin? I can see that in some languages things are said differently, for example, we say "it's a red ball" but in French we say "it's a ball red" but I know of no language that would said "you love me" which would mean "I love you," it just doesn't make much sense to me.

dothedeerdance::/ same. Sometimes I can see if one is missing, but sometimes I cant.

What if I say "mi iras al laborejon", do I say "laborejo" or "laborejon"
I'm not sure after the "al"... and this goes for some other words too.

What if the bird caught the inseck with an apple?
birdoj kaptis la insekton kun pomon?

Jes, aux ne?

"Mi iras al laborejon" isn't right, unfortunately.

That'd be like saying "Mi iras en al sur la laborejo", because the -n contradicts what the "al" means.

"al" means it's the dative, the indirect object, the thing having something going to it (whatever you call it)
"-n" means it's the accusative, the direct object, the thing having something done to it (ditto).

That said, in Esperanto, if you use -n with anything like "sur", "sub", "en", etc, it's as if you're saying instead of "on, below, in", you're now saying "onto, under, into".

So you never use -n with a prespotion unless you want that meaning. Because "prepositional" -n means "to" and "al" means "to", you never use them together.

===
So basically:
Don't use -n with prepositions. -N is its own "preposition" (a postposition but lets not get technical ).

Using -n with a preposition gives it a "to" sense, e.g inTO, onTO, etc. (I don't know what "out OF" is though )

-n basically in those cases is the short hand for "extra preposition that we can't give an exact meaning so we'll just write -n" , so you'll see it used with other prepositions to give them that "to" meaning, and also in time I think?

dothedeerdance:What if the bird caught the inseck with an apple?
birdoj kaptis la insekton kun pomon?

Jes, aux ne?

Birdo kaptis la insekton per pomo. The insect is having something done to it directly, ie is the direct object of the kapti, the apple ain't.

Hi Amy.

The preposition "al" already shows the direction of the movement, so the accusative is not needed here. The correct phrase is:

"Mi iras al laborejo".

However, you may replace the preposition with an accusative, and the phrase would be:

"Mi iras laborejon" or "Mi iras laborejen" (nowadays the latter is more common, but both mean the same, and also the same as "Mi iras al laborejo").

About the bird and the apple, the solution depends on what you mean. Did the bird use an apple to catch the insect? Or did it catch an insect which had an apple? (Granted, it would have to be a big insect or a small apple, but such things do exist.)

Respectively, the phrases would be:

1) "La birdo kaptis la insekton per pomo" (no accusative needed in pomo, since it's not part of the object; instead, "per pomo" shows us the means the bird used to catch the insect). Kion la birdo kaptis? La insekton. Kiel (aŭ kiamaniere) ĝi kaptis la insekton? Per pomo.

2) "La birdo kaptis la insekton kun pomo" (no accusative needed in "pomo", since the dependance on the object is already shown by the preposition "kun"). Kion la birdo kaptis? La insekton kun pomo.

As you see, prepositions in Esperanto are often more precise than in the national languages (or at least, more than in English and Spanish).

A piece of (unsolicited) advice for all who have difficulties with the accusative of the table of correlatives (the two things in Esperanto which are less easy than the rest of the grammar). Try to read as much as you can (books, magazines, etc.) and little by little you'll naturally incorporate these things you now consider strange, up to the point that you'll find them natural, logical and easy.

Regards,

Daniel

dothedeerdance::/ same. Sometimes I can see if one is missing, but sometimes I cant.

What if I say "mi iras al laborejon", do I say "laborejo" or "laborejon"
I'm not sure after the "al"... and this goes for some other words too.

What if the bird caught the inseck with an apple?
birdoj kaptis la insekton kun pomon?

Jes, aux ne?

3rdblade:

dothedeerdance:What if the bird caught the inseck with an apple?
birdoj kaptis la insekton kun pomon?

Jes, aux ne?

Birdo kaptis la insekton per pomo. The insect is having something done to it directly, ie is the direct object of the kapti, the apple ain't.

Is the bird catching an insect and an apple or is the bird catching an insect using an apple?

If it's catching an insect and an apple you can say either "Birdo kaptis insekton kun pomo", or if you want to stress the fact the apple is being caught and not just there for the sake of it, "Birdo kaptis insekton kaj pomon."

"And" and "with are very close in meaning, nonetheless, so feel free at times to mix them up. Some languages don't have a "with" and only have an "and".

danielcg:As you see, prepositions in Esperanto are often more precise than in the national languages (or at least, more than in English and Spanish).

Well, they seem to cover more shades of precision/imprecision, since "kun pomo" is sort of imprecise (is the bird with the apple or is the insect with the apple? No one will know!)

Nice try.

In such cases, the "principle of proximity" ("principo de apudeco") advises us to say "la birdo kun pomo kaptis la insekton" or "la birdo kaptis la insekton kun pomo", respectively, to show that the bird or the insect was the one who had the apple.

But if we really need to strike out any chance of impresicion, we may resort to another construction:

"La birdo kiu havis pomon kaptis la insekton" (="La birdo havanta pomon kaptis la insekton")

or

"La birdo kaptis la insekton kiu havis pomon" (= "La birdo kaptis la insekton havantan pomon")

Regards,

Daniel

ceigered:

danielcg:As you see, prepositions in Esperanto are often more precise than in the national languages (or at least, more than in English and Spanish).

Well, they seem to cover more shades of precision/imprecision, since "kun pomo" is sort of imprecise (is the bird with the apple or is the insect with the apple? No one will know!)

Danielcg:But if we really need to strike out any chance of impresicion, we may resort to another construction:

I think that's a great way to avoid half the problems the accusative might introduce too, just change the sentence around until you avoid any problems!

Nice try.