メッセージ: 19
言語: English
RiotNrrd (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 1:36:16
tommjames:Well when you drop a preposition you replace with the accusative (shown by -n), so I'd have to say no to the first bit and yes to the second.You do mark it with an -n. Whether that is the "accusative -n"...
I suppose it depends on whether the accusative IS the -n ending, or whether the -n ending is used for both the accusative AND for a few other things not related to marking the direct object (i.e., replacement of prepositions and indication of movement, neither of which seem related to the direct object in any meaningful way).
I guess my new question is, then, on a technical level, does the accusative case INCLUDE replacement of prepositions and indication of movement, or are the additional markings something else that we tend to just call the "accusative" out of convenience because they all involve -n endings?
Yeah, that might be splitting hairs. But I like to get my terminology correct. I see the three functions of the -n ending that I've mentioned as being really quite different, mostly unrelated, things.
So, does the accusative case strictly include all of these functions? Or are we instead sometimes using that term in an informal, less precise way, to indicate anything related to slapping an -n on the ends of words, some of which in a strict sense aren't really part of the accusative?
Polaris (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 4:42:11
Even in English, the verb "to equal" is a transitive verb. Granted, the verb means "TO BE equal to"---but regardless, transitive verbs take objects, and in this case, unu horon is, indeed, that object.
Polaris (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 4:42:45
Even in English, the verb "to equal" is a transitive verb. Granted, the verb means "TO BE equal to"---but regardless, transitive verbs take objects, and in this case, unu horon is, indeed, that object.
tommjames (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 8:22:26
RiotNrrd:Whether that is the "accusative -n"What other -n is there?
I think you're conflating "direct object" and "accusative". Marking the direct object is probably the main function of the accusative in Esperanto but it's not the only one. "en la ĝardenon", "2 metrojn longa", "lundon mi iros" etc, they are all usages of the accusative with no trace of a direct object.
RiotNrrd:So, does the accusative case strictly include all of these functions?I would say yes. At least in other languages that have similar constructions, they are considered as accusative case. For example in Latin one speaks of the "accusative of duration", "accusative of direction" etc.
I would not say that "egali" is necessarily a transitive verb, as the root is an adjective. "Egali" then, at least to my mind, means "esti egala", which obviously cannot be transitive.
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 10:19:38
But, of course, you can't do away it the idea of direct object.
'Diru al mi la veron' cannot be expressed as 'diru min la veron', nor as 'diru al mi al la vero'.
ceigered (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 10:45:33
sudanglo:'Diru al mi la veron' cannot be expressed as 'diru min la veron', nor as 'diru al mi al la vero'.Diru al mi al la vero sounds like you're asking someone to tell you (something) so much you end up arriving by logical conclusion at the truth
. 
mnlg (プロフィールを表示) 2011年8月3日 11:03:14
sudanglo:'Diru al mi la veron' cannot be expressed as 'diru min la veron', nor as 'diru al mi al la vero'.I think the point is that 'diri' can accept a direct object but 'egali' (being a predicative and therefore intransitive verb) cannot. So with 'egali' (as with 'longi', 'alti', 'enui' etc) you can apply the -n to get rid of a preposition, but that's where the similarities end. Of course direct objects exist and of course they assume the -n ending, but that was never in question, at least from my understanding of this thread.
