"Mi volas iri hejmen."
Translation:I want to go home.
What is the diffrence between: "Mi volas iri hejmen" "Mi volas iri hejmon"
I'm not certain that I'm the better guy, but I'll attempt this.
Hejmen is an adverb with a directional indicator on it. "You want to go homeward". Hejmon is a noun in the direct object. "You want to go a home." The sentence would need something to indicate whose, or what kind of, home you want to go to.
I hope that helps a bit.
Hejmo is a more literal meaning of home, as in house. Hejme means home in phrases like "Come back home", "I'm home", etc.
I think that "Mi volas iri hejmon" is not grammatically correct, because hejmo is not a direct object, hence you can't attach -n to make it accusative case. But take it with a grain of salt, I'm a beginner myself! Let's wait for someone else to clear it up better.
I think that way would be more like "Mi volas iri al hejmo" but I am also a beginner. :)
The first part made sense, i can see the difference between a physical home and an ideological home. However, the sentence in english could mean it both ways.
the second paragraph i really dont get it, and as you say, lets wait for a beter guy
My understanding is that prepositions may be replaced by the accusative case, so that "Mi volas iri hejmon" is equivalent to "Mi volas iri al hejmo" even though hejmo would not otherwise properly be a direct object in that sentence (because iri is not a transitive verb).
In the sentence “Mi volas iri hejmon” (which is grammatically correct) “hejmo” is not a direct object and the accusative case is used here to indicate movement towards something, not to indicate a direct object (like mentioned, iri is an intransitive verb). It is also correct to say “Mi volas iri al hejmo”.
In English we say "I want to go home" wherein "home" can be the hotel/campsite where one is currently sleeping, or it can mean "home", a starting place, or "home" the place where I reside when I'm not traveling. By making "home" an adverb Esperanto says "home = place where I reside…"
Some of you may be trying to make "hejme" into "homely", a no longer positive descriptive word, usually applied to females. Don't. There are other words for that. (& I won't mention any of them here, because I do TRY to be a gentleman)
BradfordBowman is technically right. In older texts you'll see phrases like "Mi iras Parizon" as a replacement for "Mi iras al Parizo". But "Mi iras Parizen" is the modern style and what you'll almost always hear today.
Can somebody explain why an adverb like "hejme", has an ending for an object? So, what's the differences between, "Mi volas iri hejme" and this sentence? Dankon!
The accusative case here is not used to indicate an object, but to indicate direction.
Here are some other examples where you use the directional -n with adverbs:
Mi staras antaŭ ĉiuj. = I'm standing in front of everyone.
Mi staras antaŭe. = I am standing at the font.
Mi iras antaŭen. = I walk forward. (direction of ‘to the front’, so -n)
Mi estas hejme. = I am home.
Mi iras hejmen. = I am going home. (in the direction of home, so -n)
Consequently, the sentence ‘Mi iras hejme’ sounds strange, but you would use the meaning of ‘iras’ as ‘to walk’ and so it can mean that you are walking home, as in, you're inside your home and there you are walking about.
Mi saltas sur la tablon. = I jump onto the table. (You jump from somewhere else onto the table.)
Mi saltas sur la tablo. = I jump on the table. (You're on the table and jumping up and down.)
Dankon for your explanation! I'm not a native English speaker so I'm trying to understand the full concept here. It's because I've learnt about accusative case in another language and it's a strict rule so it doesn't make any sense to me, because they're a different part of speech.
I'm not a native English speaker myself either, and that wouldn't help much, as English lacks the concept of the accusative case almost entirely (except in personal pronouns). Indeed, in the sentences above I had to use different constructions or prepositions to indicate what I meant, whereas in Esperanto a simple adverb or accusative was used.
The accusative case in Esperanto is also a strict rule though. It is just used for several different things. (In German is the same concept of a directional accusative case.)
Yup, I've learnt German too back in my SHS, so when I read about how the adverb in Esperanto can be changed into accusative case, it just blows my mind. Plezuro! :)
Ah, neat! I don't know what SHS is though, but I learned a little German in high school (as well?). I don't know much of it anymore though :s.
Haha, yes, Esperanto is wild like that! It's also cool how you can turn prepositions into adverbs like before!
SHS is an abbreviation for Senior High School. We use this term in our country. Yup, Esperanto is quite tricky, I thought that it's following the traditional grammar pattern, but sadly don't. :)
Aha, I see!
Well, mostly it follows normal grammar patterns, but there are all these fancy extensions that simplify (rather compactify) a lot of sentences.
Yeah. Maybe there'll be simplified version of this language? :) Ido has been trying to simplify Esperanto, but it doesn't last long.
No! Esperanto is a very simple language compared to pretty much every language. The little things like the aforementioned make Esperanto beautiful and elegant. One of the brilliant things of Esperanto is, in my opinion, the very simple -j for plurals, which Ido messes up, yielding ambiguous word endings: a word ending in an -i is either plural or an infinitive; that's dumb.
All these ‘complications’ allow one to express a lot of little nuances that other languages lack, while still keeping the language relatively simple. So simplifying Esperanto is really superfluous and would probably screw up a lot of the expressibilities and nuances.
Contender for favourite audio, he sounds like a sad child :( A+ acting skills from the voice guy, really helps with context and remembering the words
Why is that grammatically incorrect? The word ‘wanna’ is perfectly acceptable, albeit very informal. It's in my Oxford dictionary.
Really? I always considered it vernacular, and just a bit sloppy (though if you actually hear my speech you'd recognize that that is not intended as an insult to the word) The term is a slurred together form of two perfectly appropriate words ("want to") but is not, as far as I know, taught in English classes anywhere.
Oxford, eh? Maybe Irhale really should report it then. Does your dictionary include innit? Same sort of thing as wanna but built from "isn't it."
Yea. It probably has been adopted because it's so wide spread.
As a matter of fact it does contain innit! That seems particularly vernacular to me, as you don't really hear it much, do you?