Does the sentence "Ne al glavo sangon soifanta ĝi la homan tiras familion." mean the same thing as "Ĝi ne tiras la homan familion al sangon soifanta glavo." ? And does it mean "It does not draw the human family to a bloodthirsty sword." ? And why is there an "n" on the end of "sangon"? Thank you!
"Ĝi ne tiras la homan familion al glavo soifanta sangon."
It doesn't draw the human family to a sword thirsting for blood... to a blood-thirsty sword.
So, if I could expand on your explanation, I think it means this: "Ĝi (it, presumably Esperanto) ne tiras (does not draw) la homan familian (the human family - the object of the drawing) al glavo (to a sword) soifanta (thirsting) sangon (for blood - blood being the object of the thirst)." In this case, I'm inferring that "sangon" takes the accusative "n" because it is the object of something -- namely, the object of the thirst. Is that correct?
"Ne al glavo sangon soifanta ĝi la homan tiras familion."
Glavo soifas sangon. Do la glavo estas "sangon soifanta."
"Ĝi" (nova sento - forta voko) ne tiras la homan familion al tiu glavo.
sangon soifanta glavo = glavo soifanta sangon = glavo kiu soifas sangon. "Ĝi ne tiras la homan familion al glavo kiu soifas sangon.
It appears to mean the same thing on a purely technical level, but it's weird, particularly when you put the verb tiras between the homan adjective and the familion. That's probably a bit too far. Also, Esperanto puts adjectives before the verbs (see discussions elsewhere).
I was also confused by the "n" on sangon. I was thinking why not sanga soifanta glavo but that would be a thirsting sword made out of blood. An apt metaphor perhaps but not quite right. I probably would have written sango-soifanta glavo but in the end, it is a sword that is thirsting for... sangon. It's almost like this Zamenhof guy really knew the ins and outs of Esperanto or something :).
It's confusing because the "n" at the end of "sangon" makes it seem that the blood is the object of some action or movement. Yet, I don't think Zamenhof was concerned about the human family being drawn into the blood (harmless but messy), but rather its being drawn to the sword. So common sense would tell you that the sword is the object of the action being described. "al glavo" would mean "to the sword", I think. "al sangon" would mean "into the blood", I think. I would love some clarification on this grammar point from an expert Esperantist!
Sango is in accusative - sangon - because it is actually a direct object to soifas as soifanta=kiu soifas. And al glavo sangon soifanta is a prepositional phrase to tiras, so glavo is not marked by an ending, but is connected to the sentence with preposition al. Sword is a part of adverbial phrase, so the case is dative (for direction) and the preposition to=al is needed, and human family is direct object, so the case is accusative and ending -n is needed for both adjective and noun: homan familion.