1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Their home is in Brazil."

"Their home is in Brazil."

Translation:Ilia hejmo estas en Brazilo.

September 6, 2015



Not to all: "domo" (house) and "hejmo" (home) are different


In Esperanto it is.


Have they not been using "hejmo" for house and "domo" for home? I tried switching that (as hejmo sounds more like home), and it always said otherwise. Until this phrase, that is.


hemjo = home

domo = house



In English house is a physical building used for habitation, such as a stand alone building with two bedrooms and three baths. An apartment isn't a house. A office isn't a house. A jail cell isn't a house.

Home is a logical construct that means, "this is the place I go to consider myself at rest from the world." It could be a building (middle class), alley (homeless), jail cell (incarceration), work (as in that person is more comfortable there) or a mansion (a gigantic residence, too large to be considered a house in American English). Wherever it is, typically it's understood to be singular, as in you have exactly one.

"I'm going home", makes sense as it's implied there is one.

"I'm going to the house", means some specific house, maybe one you are building. Notice an article is necessary.

"I'm going to a house", could be used if home shopping.

House shopping is something a landlord does, as they have no intention of living there.

Get it?


What is the difference? Between "home" and "house."


A "house" refers to the building, and a "home" refers to the place you live. Imagine I own two houses but only live in one. I could call both "my house", but could only call the one I live in "my home".


A house is specifically a building that someone lives in, but a home is a general place. For example, "my house is in New York" and "my home is New York".


Why not Brazilujo?


You could use it and would probably be understood...there's 20,000 hits for brazilujo on Google. But should you?

I found this from Claude Gacon on the influence of Volapük on Esperanto:

Fakte Britlando kaj Brazillando estus logikaj, sed Brazilujo estis vera idiotismo, tio estas peko kontraŭ la logiko de la lingvo mem. Britujo povas konveni, ĉar oni povas imagi ujon, kiu entenas la britojn. Sed oni ne povas imagi ujon, kiu entenas la teritorion Brazilo.

(all mistakes mine)

In fact Britlando and Brazillando would be logical, but Brazilujo was a true idiom, it is a sin against the logic of the language itself. Britujo can be appropriate, because one can imagine a container, which contains the British. But one can not imagine a container, which contains the territory Brazilo.



Germano = German Germanio = Germany Italo = Italian Italio = Italy

Why not to say:

Brazilo = Brazilian Brazilio = Brazil?

This way, we would keep te "io" ending to speak about places and the "o" ending to speak about people...


The formation of the contries names was arbitrary. Countries from the Old World uses the suffix “-io” after the (majoritary) people name in the country. So we have “francoj”, “rusoj”, “germanoj”... But Brazilians are named after the country's name.

Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.