Pesan: 61
Bahasa: English
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 07.48.30
RiotNrrd:+3darkweasel:+2erinja:Perhaps you two should hash this out via private message.+1
sudanglo (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 11.29.31
It is, after all, the Esperantists' central postion that national languages are not suited to the job of 'interlingvo'.
If they were, then there wouldn't be a need for Esperanto.
Miland (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 11.38.29
) 
darkweasel (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 12.02.43
Miland:The problem is that this quarrel between the same two people appears regularly in totally unrelated threads, and some of us are getting tired of it.
ceigered (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 13.06.30
sudanglo:May I defend Geo's right to have a go (attack, not attempt) at English.I guess this makes me an Esperanta parolanto, and not an Esperantisto then
It is, after all, the Esperantists' central postion that national languages are not suited to the job of 'interlingvo'.
If they were, then there wouldn't be a need for Esperanto.
There's never a need for anything, only the illusion of it. That means there's no need for Esperanto, and neither is their a need for the nonexistence of Esperanto. It exists because someone thought it was needed. Same for natural languages. They can be used as an interlingvo, they don't have to be used. Heck, some people think we should have sign languages as IALs, and that speaking isn't even necessary.
To me, the accusative, the theme of this thread, is similar. We don't need it, we don't don't need it, it just exists. We should embrace its existence, since if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to talk about it, we'd have one less thing to debate about, and we'd be 1% more bored (seeming as we Esperantists use up 1% of our lives talking about the damn thing anyway).
So, perhaps answering the title of this thread: we don't need the accusative, we just have it because we like the idea of it, and because Zamenhoff either thought it was necessary, or liked the idea too.
ceigered (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 13.12.02
geo63 (Tunjukkan profil) 12 Agustus 2011 14.50.14
ceigered:So, perhaps answering the title of this thread: we don't need the accusative, ...Read the first post again - it is not about the necessity or not of the accusative, it was about why they used accusative in the sentence in question. So, please, do not extend this beyond its scope or we can get to this:
accusative? to hell with it
language? who cares - love rules without words (else do lizards speak?)
ceigered (Tunjukkan profil) 13 Agustus 2011 06.38.07
geo63:Well, the title asks a question, one I was answering. I don't need to read the first post because I know it asks a different question, one that's already been answered.ceigered:So, perhaps answering the title of this thread: we don't need the accusative, ...Read the first post again - it is not about the necessity or not of the accusative, it was about why they used accusative in the sentence in question. So, please, do not extend this beyond its scope or we can get to this
We don't need the accusative. Simple as that. We have it as a grammar rule because we can, and because it won't hurt
Solulo (Tunjukkan profil) 13 Agustus 2011 12.07.17
ceigered:It's not that simple. Of course we don't need accusative and we don't need cases and tenses, and we can talk like that;
We don't need the accusative. Simple as that. We have it as a grammar rule because we can, and because it won't hurt
"You bread no eat yesterday, I bread no eat. We be hungry. I your sister eat tomorrow."
But it's so nice to distinguish between;
La virino melkas bovinon.
Bovinon melkas la virino.
Bovinon la virino melkas.
Melkas la virino bovinon.
and not; The cow milks a woman.
Accusative is the most beautiful of all the cases. Millions of people know about that.
sudanglo (Tunjukkan profil) 13 Agustus 2011 13.51.29
I guess this makes me an Esperanta parolanto, and not an Esperantisto thenAs a matter of curiosity, Ceiger, what proportion of your 4000 posts have been in Esperanto?