I wanted to ask for clarification in this matter for a long time. I think I read somewhere that any preposition can be replaced by -n, but I can't find that source again. What I can find, however, is
"The preposition je can replace any other preposition and remain grammatically correct, albeit more ambiguous." [Wiktionary] (although, of course, "Ĝenerale oni evitu je, se pli bona alternativo ekzistas." [PMEG]),
"Instead of je the accusative without a preposition may be used." [Rule 14].
I know this would probably not render a very good style, but my question is one of principle: Can I chain these two rules to obtain "any preposition can be replaced by the accusative without a preposition and remain grammatically correct"? Or better still, is such claim quoted anywhere directly?
NB. The whole text of Rule 14 is:
Every preposition has a definite and permanent meaning, but if we have to use a preposition and the direct meaning doesn't tell us what preposition we should take, then we use the preposition je, which has no independent meaning. Instead of je the accusative without a preposition may be used.
One thing that could break my logic would be if the second part only applied if je was obtained via the first part (i.e., if there was no other suitable preposition). But I don't find it clear from the wording whether that is the case, and also (judging by situations like this), who am I to tell?