"The Esperantists translate a map of London to Esperanto."

Translation:La Esperantistoj tradukas mapon de Londono al Esperanto.

1 week ago

5 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/FranzEbersburg

"al Esperanton", ne eblas. Devas esti "al Esperanto", eventuale "Esperanten".

1 week ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Danielconcasco
Danielconcasco
  • 22
  • 15
  • 13
  • 12
  • 11
  • 11
  • 9
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 36

I saw this listed in the forum and thought it was a forum post about a real event ;)

This sentence is fantastic for illustrating the difference between direct objects and prepositional objects.

Hhzhang, thank you for giving such a detail explanation. This is what makes the forum great!

1 week ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Kdhy11
Kdhy11
  • 23
  • 11
  • 10
  • 4
  • 13

I've been waiting for this one to come round again: The Esperantists translate a map of London to Esperanto. Meaning: La Esperantistoj tradukas mapon de Londono al Esperanto.

Why is it " . . . al Esperanto" rather than " . . . al Esperanton"

I would have expected the accusative of direction here, especially because in another exercise, the accusative is used with a preposition, in a comparable sentence:

Esperantistoj tradukis mapon de Londono en Esperanton (accepted as correct)

1 week ago

https://www.duolingo.com/hhzhang
hhzhang
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 24
  • 24
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22
  • 21
  • 21
  • 20
  • 20
  • 19
  • 19
  • 19
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • 3
  • 46

"Al" is a preposition after which a noun doesn't ever take the -n ending - see this thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/9650731/When-to-use-the-n-ending

The more detailed, technical answer is that "al" is not considered to be a "preposition of location", even though it can clearly have a destination location associated with it. Only prepositions of location ("en" is one of them) have the rule that the n ending is used to show the destination of a motion or the direct recipient of an action. For all other prepositions, the nominative form with no ending is always used. I'm not really sure why "al" in particular isn't considered to be a preposition of location, but I can think of two reasons:

1) It always indicates a destination or recipient, so there's no ambiguity like there is for a preposition of location like "en" that would necessitate applying a rule to differentiate between two potential meanings like "en la domo" ("in the house") vs. "en la domon" ("into the house"). "Al la domo" means "to the house", and there's no other potential meaning that can be constructed with "al" and "la domo". In other words, "al" can indicate direction, but it can't indicate position, and prepositions of location must be able to indicate both.

2) Based on the previous point, why not then just classify "al" as a preposition of location and have it always add -n? Well, I think this could probably work, but the complication is that "al" is already reserved to disambiguate between indirect/prepositional objects that are the recipients/destinations of an action vs. direct objects, and if it were to always add an -n, that would make these distinctions a bit more potentially ambiguous. For example, "Mi sendas la leteron al la poŝtoficejo" would become "Mi sendas la leteron al la poŝtoficejon", and suddenly the -n ending is being used for two different reasons without there being a need to do so.

See also this link for "The Sixteen Rules of Esperanto Grammar", which touches on this question: http://literaturo.org/HARLOW-Don/Esperanto/rules.html. Rules 8 and 13 are the relevant ones.

1 week ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Kdhy11
Kdhy11
  • 23
  • 11
  • 10
  • 4
  • 13

Thank you for taking the time to explain this so carefully. I am still a bit confused, but your post has given me the key I needed to spot the differences as I move along in Eo.

1 week ago
Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.