Ekz:

Mi diras aferojn.+Mi pensas ke ili veras.

Divinite, ĉu:

Mi diras aferojn, mi pensas, ke kiuj veras.

Mi diras aferojn, kiuj mi pensas, ke veras

Mi diras aferojn, ke kiuj veras, mi pensas

Google translate diris:

Mi diras aferojn, kiujn mi pensas, ke veras. Pri aliaj vortoj kaj:

Mi diras aferojn, kiujn mi opinias veraj. Pri la veraj vortoj

https://preview.redd.it/z4k97tjcluwd1.png?width=1111&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e9d7c6e9131b61187ccf51cdaeed5dbc3ff152f

in some examples you can drop the estas since without it seems the sentence assume an infinitive tense? heres an example of it being correct-

https://preview.redd.it/jm88kuw1nuwd1.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=30b0b429604c8df681b7964dc9f792b7a608bfc5

could someone clarify this for me?

In a recent thread, I asserted that ROOT + i = to do the action associated with the root. Somebody questioned this. As a general rule, I hold this to be self-evident, following from the very definition of "verb." It also touches on basic daily principles of Esperanto word formation.

What is a root?

In Esperanto, a root is the part of a word not including the grammatical ending. So, if we have a word like kuri (mi kuras / I run), the root would be kur-. For granda the root is grand-. For domo the root is dom-. In dictionaries, you'll often see this written as kur/i, grand/a, and dom/o.

Generally, a root is seen as having a basic meaning. Usually this basic meaning is associated with a part of speech. Dom-, for example, has to do with houses - which are physical things. Grand- has to do with size, which is a quality. Kur- has to do with running, which is an action. These associations are sometimes called "the grammatical character of the root". Even if we say that dom- is a "noun root", it doesn't actually become a noun till we add the -o and get domo.

By switching the grammatical endings, we can come up with new words such as grando (size), kuro (a run), doma (domestic). Exactly how this works in various situation is a big part of learning Esperanto.

What is a verb?

A verb basically shows what the subject is doing. Traditionally it's said that they show an action, occurrence, or state. Esperanto verbs are no different.

When explaining word formation, I generally just say "action" for simplicity. I don't think most people make a distinction between an "action" and an "occurrence". For example when bananas ripen, does it not seem that the bananas are doing an action? (To me it does.) When I say that est/i means "to do the action associated with being", is it not obvious that we mean "to be"? (to me it is).

How do verbs and roots get together?

The easiest situation to consider is when we have a verb root and add a verb ending. Just flipping through the D section of the dictionary, I see damni, danci, danki - to damn, dance, and thank, respectively. When we use these as verbs, they mean "to do the action associated with damning, dancing, or thanking" -- that is, they mean to damn someone, dance, or thank. Where it becomes more interesting is when we use other kinds of roots.

One classic example is martel/o - a hammer. If we change this to a verb (marteli) it means to do the action associated with a hammer -- that is... to hammer something - to HIT something with a hammer. This is because people know that hammers are for hitting. Other roots have different actions associated with them - and not necessarily related to hitting.

Flipping through the dictionary again - this time at F

• fabl/o (a fable) -> fabl/i (to tell a fable)
• fabrik/o (a factory) -> fabrik/i (to make in a factory)
• faktur/o (a bill / invoice) -> faktur/i (to invoice, to write on a bill)

Clearly, hammers are associated with hitting, fables are things that we tell, factories are places that we make things in, invoices are things that you write on. This list could go on -- but there are other roots where the meaning is not so clear. Continuing through the Fs I see falk/o (falcon). Maybe the verb form would mean "to act like a falcon" or "to keep falcons" or "to hunt with falcons." It's possible it doesn't really mean anything at all.

In other cases, a noun can have more than one action associated with it -- or perhaps two closely related actions.

• fum/o (smoke) -> fum/i (to smoke)

Note that this can mean "to give off smoke" (la cindroj fumas) or to smoke tobacco or similar products. Personally, I like to imagine that this is one meaning and that when people go outside to smoke on their breaks they're out there giving off smoke. Not everybody sees it that way, which is fine.

What about adjectives?

Careful readers will notice that in the previous section I only talked about verb roots and noun roots in my examples. In part this was because it's often easier to see "the action associated with the root" in these cases. I also think there are more of them, so it's easier to find.

A third reason is that I've already written a whole article over on Transparent Language about this.

But following the same pattern and scrolling through R, the first adjective in PIV with a verb entries are

• rapid/a (fast) -> rapid/i (to hurry - to try to do something fast)
• reciprok/a (reciprocal) -> reciprok/i (to reciprocate i.e. to give reciprocally)

Actually, that's all I found for the Rs. There were a few other adjectives, but none of them had actions that were clearly associated with them to the point where these ended up in a dictionary. As with the example of falko above, the action may or may not be clear.

Finally

Different words and different word orders exist in Esperanto for a reason. Quite often when we change these things it can change a nuance or even the whole meaning.

A fun example is "ni ĉetablas." Literally: we at-table-verb / we are at-tableing.

This is not necessarily a common expression. Someone might say that we are at the table. To me it's a little more active. It's even more than "ni sidas ĉe la tablo". It's more like "here we are hanging out together at the table - doing the kinds of things we like to do together here." We're doing the action associated with "at the table".

i have only just started on Duolingo and am having issues with the grammar.

https://preview.redd.it/hbfjerr30jwd1.png?width=1188&format=png&auto=webp&s=dce7b183586795fd516d7c93ecc9f8a84b5ab05f

i don't understand how this is incorrect. i thought estas mean is am and are? there are other cases of esperanto senteces "skipping" words like estas and la. another case of me not understanding estas is in the sentence kiel fartas adamo kaj sofia if i swapper fartas with estas it says i got the answer wrong? i really dont get it and have been unable to progress there are some other things but don't have examples at current. would appreciate the help.

The title is a bit of an over-exaggeration, but I feel like it's something that's a bit of a stumbling block from pursuing Esperanto in earnest. I feel like maybe I'm not as clever as many of the speakers of this wonderful language is

I've been a lurker for a little while now, and it seems like a very great community! There are some very knowledgeable people that are available to answer questions, but I feel like some of the finer points of thinking about languages and the mechanics are pretty intimidating, or are for me anyway.

Sorry for the long first post, but can just a normal goober that's average actually have an OK command of Esperanto? Thank you for reading!

Many of us speak a native language which doesn't have an accusative, or uses it in only very limited circumstances. Understanding (or better: feeling in your gut) the difference between subjects and objects takes time. It takes focused practice. While you're working on that, it can help to learn a few common patterns.

Avoiding a Sisterona accusative in verb-first sentences

I recently noticed some discussion of the following (grammatically incorrect(*)) sentence:

• Restas unu semajnon por vi partopreni en la Usona Bona Filmfestivalo

This was in a reddit thread with the subject Restas Unu Semajnon por La 6a Usona Bona Film-Festivalo! Nobody requested a correction, but someone spoke up and pointed out that "unu semajno" is the subject, and therefore it should not have an -n on it. Someone else speculated that the people who were responsible for these sentences had only been learning Esperanto for a week. It seems clear that the person making that comment was doing his/her best at understanding the situation, but had gotten some wires crossed (being a beginner him/herself) because in fact, the person speaking in the video has been speaking Esperanto for years, as has the person who typed the subject into the reddit thread. Both of them have had the benefit of multiple, in person experiences of learning Esperanto at NASK and elsewhere. Something else is clearly going on.

In fact, this kind of error - where someone uses an erroneous accusative directly after a verb - is so common that it has a name: The Sisterona accusative.

Different kinds of verb-first sentences

There are a few reasons we'd start a sentence with a verb. Perhaps the most common is if we're making a command. ("Donu al mi vian kukon!"). It doesn't seem like these cause problems for people so let's consider a few others.

The second most common is probably "the impersonal use of estas**"** -- that is, to use "estas" to mean "it is" or "there is."

• Estas malvarme en mia domo - it's cold in my house
• Estas tri pomoj en la bovlo - there are three apples in the bowl

This shouldn't cause too much confusion, at least as far as the accusative is concerned - because you don't use -n with estas anyway.

I would also put so-called "weather verbs" (e.g. "pluvas" = it's raining) in this same category since they rarely stand with a noun, so there won't be confusion about accusative.

Done more with some verbs than others

This brings us to certain verbs that often come at the beginning of a sentence:

• Mankas al mi mono por iri al ARE - I don't have the money (lit: money is missing to me) to go to the fall gathering.
• Ekzistas multaj diversaj vojoj por eterne paroladi en gazetoj pri nia afero - There exist many different ways to talk on about Esperanto in our magazines.
• Ne plaĉas al mi via vizaĝo - I don't like your face (i.e.: it does not please to me your face / your face does not please me)
• Pasis tri jaroj - three years passed
• Regis granda konfuzo - A great confusion reigned
• Sekvis profesia ventrodanco - And then there was professional belly dancing (lit: a professional belly dance followed).

Note that in some cases, you could change to a more English word order: mono mankas / tri jaroj pasis / konfuzo regis / ventrodancado sekvis ... but for these kinds of expressions, it's very common to put the verb first. Remember that the noun that comes next is the subject - the thing that is doing the pleasing, passing, ruling, or following. And so, these don't take an -n, as shown above.

Note also that some of my translations use "impersonal" verbs -- there exist / it does not please. There a few ways to look at these, but the meaning (and grammar) doesn't change.

Additional common patterns

Often, a sentence will start with a verb if it's introducing a ke-phrase. Here are some quick examples.

• Okazas iafoje, ke - sometimes it happens that
• Sufiĉas, ke - it's enough that
• Staras tute ekster dubo, ke - it stands beyond doubt that
• Povas esti, ke - It's possible that
• Ŝajnas al ili, ke - it seems to me that
• Montriĝas, ke - it's coming to show that
• Mirigas min, ke - It amazes me that

A few more examples

Some miscellaneous examples that I've come up with

• venis jam la tempo

You could say "la tempo jam venis" but it's common here to put the verb first.

• Saluton! Parolas Tomaso.

This is how I start most of my YouTube videos. You could say "Tomaso parolas" - but the nuance is different. Putting the verb first makes it less a statement of fact, and more of an introduction: it's Thomas who is speaking / It's Thomas here / Thomas speaking.

• La tempo estas bona; mi rapidos: Silentas ĉio, kaj neniu vidos.

Putting the verb (silentas) first puts emphasis on the silence.

• Vivis iam homo tre malbona kaj peka.

Putting the subject first here (homo tre malbona kaj peka iam vivis) would make this a mundane statement of fact. A very bad and sinful person was once alive. Putting the verb first makes this a good way to start a story - there once lived very bad and sinful person. In both cases, the very bad and sinful person is the subject and does not take an -n.

Finally, you'll occasionally see verbs first for apparently no good reason.

• Akrigas bonege mi ĉiun tranĉilon.

The normal way to say this would be Mi akrigas ĉiun tranĉilon bonege. There's no good reason here to put the verb first, except thiat this was supposed to be from a song and was done this way to force a rhyme and make it feel more like a song than normal speech. The meaning is the same, and "mi" is the subject (no -n) in both cases.

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider subscribing to my mailing list where I periodically share this kind of exploration into Esperanto grammar. See link in the comments.

(*) As a side note, I said above that nobody asked for corrections. I'll point out that there are two errors in the text. (If you're going to offer corrections, at least be complete about it.) The word "vi" is superfluous. It's clear that the intention was to say "there's a week left FOR YOU to participate in the UBFF" - but it would be better without the word "vi" because Esperanto doesn't work like that.

Ever since I started learning Esperanto, I've encountered an unusual phenomenon where (in real life) if someone finds out that I speak Esperanto, they will proceed to "educate" me about what Esperanto is. They say things like:

• Esperanto was invented in 1970
• Too bad nobody speaks it
• This shows that the UN can't invent a language
• It's based on Spanish, English, and French

This all goes to show that there is no shortage of people who will talk at length about things they know nothing about - even in the face of someone who actually knows something about the topic.

Duolingo used to have "sentence threads" -- a forum where you could ask questions about any one of the sentences in the course. I spent hours a day finding and following these threads, but most of the people who were presented these threads were only about 5 minutes ahead in the course from the next guy, so there were plenty of wrong explanations in these threads. I noticed that a clear, plausible, wrong answer could often attract dozens of upvotes. The same thing happens in this subreddit.

Just like we now need to be careful not to learn bad Esperanto from free antique textbooks like the one by Ivy Kellerman Reed, or to avoid buying books on Amazon that were created using Google Translate, we need to figure out whether any random screen name in this subreddit knows what it's talking about.

Another thing that would happen on the Duolingo Esperanto Forum is that people would argue. Sometimes they'd even post links. Sometimes these would link to articles that were as long as a book chapter ... and so I'd ask what part of that link makes the point that they think it's making. Occasionally they'd specify ... and it would turn out to be saying something different from what they were saying. Deep in my heart, I know these kinds of discussions are not very useful - and for sure they are exhausting.

Sometimes I can't help myself. It seems to me that people should only offer help online if they know what they're talking about. Wrong information should be contradicted. People shouldn't post links that say something different from what they're trying to say. Some of my friends tell me that some people aren't worth engaging with. Not knowing when to let people say wrong things about Esperanto and to walk away letting other people believe it is perhaps a personal fault of mine.

Recently, I had a series of exchanges with a person here. This person repeatedly accused me of "making up rules that don't exist." Shame on me for taking the bait. At the end of the most recent discussion, I reached out to an Esperanto speaker that I know personally. Someone I've had breakfast with on more than one occasion. I let him know that someone out there is quoting PMEG and saying it means something that it doesn't. This breakfast companion also happens to be the author of PMEG. He did not agree with how this person was interpreting his words, and will be changing that section of PMEG to try to make it more clear.

My advice for any serious learner in this forum is to learn who these people are who are commenting. Just because an answer is clear or contains links doesn't mean that the person knows what they're talking about. The people with the best answers tend to stick around longer.

Because free advice is often worth every penny.

Saluton. Mi ĵus legis la Manifeston de Ŝventojo, kaj min surprizis la jena frazo:

Pro efiki internacia kunlaboro, bezonatas facila tamen esprimpova lingvo kiel Esperanto, kiun ĉiuj fakuloj kaj respondeculoj de ĉia organizo, sen perdado de tro da sia valora tempo, povu utiligi efike, kontentige kaj senmiskomprene.

Komprenemble, la vorto „bezonati‟ signifas „esti bezonata‟. Aliloke mi multfoje vidis la proponon esprimi kompleksajn tensojn per kunmetaĵoj tiaj ĉi: bezonitos, bezonantis, bezonontu, ktp., sed mi ĝis nun ne rimarkis ilin en Esperanta literaturo. Tian uzadon mi tial konsideris marĝena, sed komprenebla. Vidante tian verbon en komunikaĵo de TEJO, mi scivolas: Ĉu ĉi tiaj kompleksaj tensoj estas pli normalaj kaj akceptitaj ol mi antaŭe kredis? Aŭ ĉu mi plej bone konsideru ĉi tiun vorton en la Manifesto neordinara stilfiguro, ne imitinda?

Dankon pro viaj konsiloj kaj opinioj.

So I am a little confused when it comes to nouns vs adjectives, and need some help.

For example in my screen name Iron Sirocco. The noun of 'iron' is Fero; however, if I was made from Iron I would be Fera. However - my native language, English does not have a different form from Noun or Adjective for Iron, so I am a little confused as to how to use it in a title or name (noun)

Another example: the Comic Iron Fist - would it be Fero Pugno or would it be Fera Pugno?

Esperanto for "curiosity". I'm a bit confused because I read that the "c" is pronounced like "ts," and I'm unsure how the "s" and "c" combine in this cluster. The one audible pronouncation I've found made a seperate "ssss" sound before saying "civolemo", and I want to know if that really the right way to say that word.

I had a chat with GPTs advanced chat to see if i can speak Esperanto to it which I could and I was amazed although I couldn't understand it very well due to my level I found it awesome until my monthly limit ran out. But if you have chatgpt try out the advanced voice feature.

So im doing the duolingo course Why is Adam turned into Adamo

22 years ago or so, I created a "temporary" email address in anticipation of a road trip that I was taking in order to speak more Esperanto. At the time, I accessed email on CompuServe and there was no cost-effective way to check CompuServe without special software, which I wasn't prepared to do. Not only did I need something web-based, I needed a fun name to use as my email address.

And I remembered another Esperanto event: Dinner with a local Esperantist at an Indian restaurant. We were drooling over the thought of all the yummy Indian food we were going to eat, and so my friend booked a table for the "Salivanto" party.

I didn't imagine that this "temporary" email would still be in use (as my main email address) decades later, or that there would be people who know me as Salivanto, rather than by my real name.

"Do you know Salivanto on the Duolingo Esperanto Forum?"

I never thought of "Salivanto" as a kaŝnomo**.** When I send email from Salivanto, my real name is attached. My real name and photo (and FB account when it was allowed) was attached to the Salivanto profile on Duolingo. My main channel on YouTube is Esperanto Variety Show - which includes references to "Salivanto" and to my real name. Ditto for the spin-off channel "Salivanto." My reddit profile picture is a real picture of me (from a video that can be found with hashtag #TTUTTChallenge)

Why am I mentioning this? Because I want people to know why I'm here in this forum. I want people to know who I am and what my relationship with Esperanto is. I want to be able to provide clear and accurate information about Esperanto to as many people as possible without getting bogged down in arguments about misinformation and disinformation.

It's easy to make false claims about Esperanto. I see it in this forum all the time - and I saw it every day on the Duolingo Espernto forum when it was still functioning. Sometimes people will respond with a link to "prove their point". The link, invariably, was to a multi page document that said nothing about the misinformation that was under discussion. There's a special kind of asymmetry here. The best response is to know who you're interacting - and I think that the fact that I've been using the same name in Esperantujo for more than a quarter of a century, and that you can see who I interact with, says something.

The tradition on Reddit is apparently for everything to be anonymous. And so, anybody can come along and make any claim they want about Esperanto without impacting what they do offline or on other platforms. I don't see that as a great way to learn - and strikes me as contrary to the spirit of Esperanto.

https://preview.redd.it/bhxcd3zdz3ud1.png?width=646&format=png&auto=webp&s=809e6f5dd0b46d94e71bce3c8133bd102e814712

Here is a picture that I once tweeted out so I could post it on Duolingo.

https://preview.redd.it/s6d8222eattd1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f08c1317d62ae73cdc5357aec01cb914c6eb273

I am not the author of the image, but it makes a good point. Eliri means "to go out" and when you use the word "eliri" you need the preposition "el" to specify what it is that you're going out OF.

You have to say eliri EL la buso

Eliri means simply "to go out". It is not a transitive verb. If you want to say what you went out of/from -- you need an additional preposition.

• Mi eliris el la buso.
• I went out from within the bus.

Note that many people misunderstand this - including some well-known teachers and expert speakers of the language - so if your intuition tells you otherwise, you're in good company, but it's a fact that to treat *eliri* as a transitive verb is to misunderstand how Esperanto works, and this is not just my opinion. It's the understanding of our most trusted experts.

What about eniri la buson?

The accusative in Esperanto can show *al-movo* but it doesn't show *el-movo*. This is a well-established principle in Esperanto.

I really would like people to take my word for this -- but you can also rest assured that this is the advice of Bertilo Wenegren (author of [PMEG](https://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/rolmontriloj/n/direkto.html)), Lee Miller, and the authors of PIV:

" Rim. 1 Malkonsilinde estas uzi akuzativon anst. prep. kiu signifas deiron, formovon k tiel kontraŭdiras la almovan signifon: **oni diru: eliri el urbo**, ne: eliri urbon."

And if the link to PIV and [PMEG](https://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/rolmontriloj/n/direkto.html) isn't convincing, here's another quote from Bertilo:

Laŭ mi "eliri la laborejon" devas signifi "eliri (el la hejmo) **cele la laborejon**".

See "eliri straton" (to go out onto the street) or "eliri la koridoron" (to go out into the corridor) below.

But what about the Tekstaro?

More than one person has pointed out to me that there are a number of examples in the literature of *eliri* followed by an accusative. I would prefer not to get bogged down in the details, but consider:

-  Even the most simplistic analysis will show that *eliri* has something like 35 hits in Tekstaro with an accusative and several thousand without.

• A reading of the actual sense of the 35 hits will demonstrate many of the details that I already explained above.

If anybody is interested in digging more into the results, pay attention to where the people are when they "go out." If they're in a courtyard and *eliri straton* or in a ballroom and *eliri koridoron* - it seems to me the interpretation has to be that the meaning is as was stated in "Don't take my word for it" above. The fact the people see this usage and misunderstand it seems to me to underscore the importance of using clear prepositions.

Note: much of this text is from an archived post from Duolingo. The formatting didn't come over the way I wanted. I will come back to fix it.

Mi estas komencanto pri Esperanto, sed mi verkis novelon. Espereble vi ŝatas ĝin.
-+-
Cent Jaroj da Soleco En la Jarcento de La Unu

~

Antaŭ multaj jaroj, kiam li alfrontis la ekzekuttrupon, kolonelo Aureliano Buendía devis rememori tiun malproksiman posttagmezon, kiam lia patro prenis lin por malkovri glacion.

"La glacio estis malvarma.", li diris al si.

Tiam, li turnis sin al la ekzekuttrupo kaj diris al ili: "Mi konas Chuck Norris.".

Ili tuj liberigis lin.

LA FINO.

=+=

One Hundred Years of Solitude In the Century of The One

~

Many years ago, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.

"The ice was cold.", he thought to himself.

Then, he turned to the firing squad and told them: "I know Chuck Norris.".

They released him immediately.

THE END.

=+=
Daŭre vivu la revo pri mondo sen milito.

i've been looking for resources to start learning esperanto, and i wanted to know your opinions and suggestions. would be pretty helpful. preferibly free please.

What's the difference between: "Li iris ĝardenon" and "Li iris en la ĝardenon"? I understood that in the first it means that I'm going towards the garden but I'm not necessarily in it, while the second means that I'm entering the garden. Does that make sense? I'm struggling with this at the moment.

There's a great, free flash card site like the old Memrise app, but it's pretty lacking Esperanto content. It will become an app for mobile at some point.

However there are only 2 decks for Esperanto. If anyone has any saved lists, please consider uploading them.

https://deckademy.com/#/decks?s=&icat=2&tcat=49

So me and the guy I've been talking to have been engaging in our love for learning languages, he speaks 5 and I'm still on my journey to learn esperanto. I've convinced him to start learning it which is a huge motivation helper for me, and recently, we started calling each other cute nonsensical pet names. I call him my florvazo and he calls me his nova taso and I just think that's neat and wanted to share ♥️.

Hi. Does anyone know of an alternative to Tajpi (or how to fix it)? I recently started using it to be able to type in Esperanto on Mac but it doesn't seem to work on Sequoia. Thanks.

Edit: Reposting here from r/Esperanto because I was asked by a mod to post it here instead.

Would it be fine to call her Bebo? Or would that be werid in Esperanto ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Myrtis Smith verkas plurajn librojn por lernantoj de Esperanto. Sed mi legas ke iam ajn de tiaj fekundaj verkistoj simple uzas AI-n por krei libraĉojn rapide.

Ĉu Myrtis Smith skribas bonajn librojn, aŭ ne?

So, I love listening to music covers in Esperanto, but there are always some shortening. Is there a rule for proper shortening? What types of words can be shortened? Do you do that in your regular speech?