Translating literature is hard enough when the grammar is correct, but harder still when it's not. What bad grammar do you ignore, and what do you attempt to translate? There's no right answer, I'm afraid. I think the reason "pocketses" works is because, in English, the plural can sometimes be "s" and sometimes "es" and Gollum's muttering uses both. But there's only one plural ending in Esperanto, so "poŝojoj" does not have the same ring to it (at least to my ears).
For what its worth, here's the line from "La Hobito aŭ Tien kaj Reen" as translated by Christopher Gledhill and William Auld:
- Original: "...what it's got in its nassty little pocketses"
- Translation: "...kion ĝi havass en siaj aĉaj poŝoj"
Original: "...what it's got in its nassty little pocketses" Translation: "...kion ĝi havass en siaj aĉaj poŝoj"
What happened to the pocketses being little? Or pluralised?
Shouldn't it be poŝetoj? Or even poŝeetoj to not quite make a sibilant hiss, but at least end it with an idiosyncratic breathy sound that a hisser might also make?
In fact, in Esperanto, it might be easier to change the sibilant hiss to a lengthening of the vowels. I presume this is something that would be unambiguous to someone with more Esperanto knowledge than I have, but feel free to comment if and why you disagree. I am trying to learn what one can and cannot do with the language, but as a writer and poet, I cannot promise not to use it creatively in ways someone might dislike once I know it well enough. =P
"...kion ĝi haavas en siaj aaĉaj poŝetoojoj"
As a long-time speaker of the language, I would avoid doubling up on vowels, at least toward the end of the word. There are compound words in Esperanto that have repeated vowels, and each gets their own syllable. So, seeing "poŝeetoj", I'm inclined to read it as "poŝe-etoj" which leaves me wondering what a "poŝeo" is. Your proposals with double vowels very early in the word don't look quite as weird, so they might work. But I still think the best choice would be to lengthen the consonants.
In the first sentence, the verb "havas" is used, which takes an object, as it's a transitive verb. "Kion" is asking for the direct object of "havas." In the second sentence, "estas" is the verb, which doesn't take an object, thus, "kio" is used.
Also, "en" is a preposition, and the only time you use the accusative case with a preposition is if it's showing direction.
For example: "Li kuras en la domon," which means, "He runs in(to) the house."
Note that if you were to take off the accusative, it would be: "Li kuras en la domo," which changes its meaning to, "He runs in the house."
The difference is that in the prior sentence, there was a direction (running INTO the house) while in the second sentence, he is assumed ALREADY IN the house, and the sentence is merely describing the state of him running in it. As such, "kuras" does not take an object in the second sentence because the accusative case was not used.
I hope that clears it up. I'm not too great at explaining things sometimes.
[Edited because I flubbed up the translation of a word in the original post, sorry.]