The problem with with
I once journeyed with a dwarf in order to steal a dragon's gold with a magical ring. He became very angry with us.
Three uses of the word “with” in the above passage. But with each usage comes a distinctly different meaning. This may not be very remarkable for a fluent English speaker, but it's a tad overkill. Needless ambiguity in my humble opinion.
If you’re English, the last “with” will most likely mean to you that the dragon was angry at my companion and I. But why doesn’t the “with” mean the same as it does in the first instance? In other words, why doesn’t it mean that the dragon got angry together with us at the same time (or at the same thing)?
Same with the second example, why aren't we stealing gold and a ring together? Instead, we're using the ring to steal the gold.
What does Esperanto do about this? Three different words!
kun
with - in the sense of being together with something
per
with - in the sense of "by means of"
kontraŭ
against - "with" when the meaning is against, rather than together with
Let's see that working:
mi foje vojaĝis kun gnomo por ŝteli la oron de drako per magia ringo. Li tre koleriĝis kontraŭ ni
Nifty!
And you can turn prepositions like this into standalone adverbs with the trusty adverbial -e ending:
ni vojaĝis kune
we journeyed together
So you don't have to say the full version with the prepositional object:
ni vojaĝis unu kun la alia
we journeyed with one another
Wouldn't it be great if English used its adverbial -ly (e.g. quiet vs quietly) in an equally productive manner? Yes it would:
we journeyed withly
Perfection.
