Unuoj de distanco estas unu el la esceptoj al la akuzativon post prepozicio regulo. [http://es.lernu.net/lernado/gramatiko/demandoj/n.php regulo du]
Dankon pro la riĉa ligilo!
Fakte, la regulo temas pri anstataŭigo de prepozicio per la finaĵo "-n" de akuzativo. Samkiel oni povas diri "Mi iras al Parizo" aŭ "Mi iras Parizon", estas implica prepozicio, kiam oni diras "ni loĝas dudek kilometrojN for", t.e.: "ni loĝas JE dudek kilometroj for". Do, simpla anstataŭigo.
Okazas same, kiam vere estas post-prepozicia akuzativo, ĉar "duobla prepozicio" estas implice (kvankam neniam parolata en Esperanto).
Ekzemple: "la kato kuras SUB la tabloN", signifas ke la celo/direkto de ĝiaj movoj estas sube de la tablo, t.e., "la kato kuras AL SUB la tablo". Denove, tiu lasta frazo neniam vere estas parolata en Esperanto, sed jen la klarigo de la regulo pri akuzativo post prepozicio.
By the way, a mile is "mejlo" in Esperanto, so you could also say "Ni loĝas dek du mejlojn for" instead. (Because 20 km ≈ 12 mi)
But apart from the US and the UK there are not really other countries that use miles and mph, so the rest of us would prefer you make sure your audience is US American or British when you use such a confusing word. ;)
Liberia also uses miles. (rah!?)
And a mile is a bit more than 1.6 kilometers.
Or, about 12.5 miles in uncivilized terms.
Kaj mi uzas necivilizatan intence.
Being not a native English speaker, the use of for here seems a direct translation from English, and is very odd to me, considering what I've learnt so far about the language. Also, I don't see such an example on PIV (or did I miss it?). So, is this how Esperanto really works and are there any other ways of saying the same thing? Could any experienced Esperantist share some (possibly unbiased towards English) thoughts about this?
It's definately not English. http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/e-vortecaj_vortetoj/lokaj/for.html
I know what the word for means in Esperanto. And I understand its other uses. I'm concerned with this particular use, and the page you linked does not give an example, which uses for in the way it is used in this sentence — after a distance. That is my question, and also how can the same thing be said in a different way.
For doesn't mean "after a distance", it means "away" or possibly "distant."
And are you asking how one can say that someone/thing is gone, in the distance, disappeared, or off and away in a different manner?
Distant = Malproksime. Ni loĝas dudek kilometrojn malproksime. The other words just don't make any sense here.
I guess I didn't express myself correctly. I didn't mean that "for" means "after a distance", I meant that it is used after a distance word, which is "kilometrojn".
I know that "for" means "away". Still, what bothers me is the way it is used in this sentence. For an English speaker, it seems perfectly natural, but for someone like me, it doesn't. In Bulgarian (my native language), when I want to say that I live 20km away, it would be something like this (translating it literally in Esperanto, so you would understand it; I'm assuming you don't speak Bulgarian):
- Mi loĝas sur/ĉe 20 kilometrojn.; or a bit longer and more precise:
- Mi loĝas sur/ĉe 20 kilometrojn de ĉi tie.
I'm not sure whether sur, ĉe or maybe je would be the best preposition but my point is that there is some preposition there, and then there is no word after the distance, or you can add "from here".
I'm pretty sure the sentence now looks weird to you, just like the original one looks weird to me. Now, I'm not trying to convince people that translating literally from Bulgarian to Esperanto is the way to make this sentence perfect. But on the other hand, it seems that Duolingo is doing just that on me by showing me a word for word translation of the English sentence to Esperanto (that's what I see). And since neither PIV nor PMEG give such an example for using the word "for", I'm really confused. Is this proper Esperanto? Or is my version of the sentence better? Or is there a third version, that would be the best?
Now you might argue that people will understand me when I use this sentence. Sure, they might — if they speak English too, but that's not the point of Esperanto, right? If I went to an Esperanto gathering in Bulgaria (where there would be people that don't speak English) and asked someone how far he lives, I would most certainly hear my version of the sentence and not the one offered by Duolingo.
I'm sorry about the wall of text, I'm really just trying to understand this in detail, hoping that it wouldn't just be the next thing that I have to accept using English grammar in Esperanto 'just because'.
Actually, I understood your Esperanto perfectly. And yes, that would be an accepted way of saying the same thing in the language. As for the sentence looking weird, I'm currently reading a book translated (kind of poorly, bedaŭre) from the Korean and it is full of grammatical structures that make perfect sense, but sometimes require a second reading, for me. And even in English I have seen constructs approaching I live at the 20 kilometer point from here. or I live away over there, about 20 kilometers off.
I simply misunderstood the thrust of your question and I do apologize for that. And you're right about me not speaking Bulgarian. I worked with two Bulgarian Engineers once, and they tried to teach me some of the basics of the language, but the information didn't stick. (I still recognize when I hear thank you in that language though.) (not a hint)
And don't worry about explaining your question clearly even if it requires a wall o' text ten kilometers high the point of this whole exercise is to learn, and one learns by asking. (It's also, apparently, to help people get out of the "My language is the only one which works" rut.) My one big complaint about Duo is its insistence on teaching Esperanto with a strict English word order. That's too limiting to the language and I've complained about it before, to many people.
Mi dankas al vi por la klarigo. Kaj esperas, ke mia vortmuro ne estas tro granda.
Thank you for understanding that I'm just trying to learn and thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I really appreciate it and even though I know you don't need lingots, that's the only way to repay you here, so I'll give you one (or more).
Or, as we say in Bulgarian: