"Here are pills for the severe pain in your dog's teeth."
Translation:Jen piloloj kontraŭ la severa doloro en la dentoj de via hundo.
mizinamo and you're both right. Some Googling can get you to a Wikipedia article about it. I've never had to translate a similar sentence between languages where one has articles and a short possessive form (English) and one that has articles but no short form (Esperanto). I always worked between languages which either both have the same approach (English <-> Danish) or one language doesn't use articles at all (Czech). Therefore it never occurred to me to think about this.
On a spectrum bounded by a roommate on one side and this one roommate of mine on the other, my non-native ear (apparently incorrectly) hears my roomate as something in between.
Question: Would "piloloj por la severa dentdoloro de via hundo" not be more "esperantic"? :-))
The preposition is all wrong - you want something that works against the dog's pain, you don't want something to create pain.
Ha, ha! Jes, you are perfectly right concerning the "For". In fact the question was about the rest of the sentence. So I reformulate it again: Would "piloloj kontraŭ la severa dentdoloro de via hundo" not be more "esperantic" than "doloro en dentoj de via hundo"?
I don't know what counts as "Esperantic" :)
Though I've heard that "anything that is clear and easily understood is correct".
So arguably the version with "doloro en la dentoj" is simpler and thus "better" than the one with the compound noun "dentdoloro".
Let others decide.
My non-expert opinion is that it's easier and simpler to decode (or construct) a compound noun than it is to have to bother with prepositions.
OK, OK. No problem! I did not think that people would take all that so seriously! Anyway, "esperantic" is an invented word, so, no need to talk any longer about all that. Actually, I only wondered if the possibility of Esperanto to create new words would be relevant here... Mizinamo thinks it is not. Since he is a linguist with references, he is certainly right. Good! :-) And thank you my friend!
Easy there now :)
I think simpler is often better. I don't know what the majority thinks would be more in the "spirit" of Esperanto :)
What's wrong with Jen piloloj kontraŭ la severa doloro en dentoj de via hundo?
Possessed items are definite, so "your dog's teeth" needs to be la dentoj de via hundo.
Dentoj de via hundo would be something like "(some of the) teeth of your dog('s)".
Like the difference between "my father's friend" (la amiko de mia patro) and "a friend of my father's" (amiko de mia patro).
Hmmm, not really sure I get it. I understand what you mean, but on what grounds does it stand? How can I know if the speaker talks about specific set of teeth or not, English doesn't give any hint about it (when the possessive 's is used).
I see no difference in meaning between my friend and a friend of mine so that doesn't really help me either.
English does give a hint about it if the possessive 's is used -- that means that it is definite.
You could translate "my friend" as "the friend of mine", as opposed to the indefinite "a friend of mine".
You can see similar things in other languages, such as Italian and Norwegian, which explicitly mark the definiteness ("il mio amico", "vennen min" for "my friend"), unlike e.g. the related languages Spanish and Danish ("mi amigo", "min ven").
Thank you for the explanation. I've never heard about this before. Is it some kind of fixed rule that maybe has a name?
I understand what you're saying with the friend examples, but I can't imagine a sentence where it would make a difference. Can you think of any such sentence?
Plus, are you saying that the definitivness is implied not just by 's possessive constructions but also by possessive constructions using pronouns?
Yes, possession (whether by possessive adjectives or by 's) implies definiteness, as far as I know.
1) "I will bring my boyfriend to the party". This implies that you have exactly one -- the equivalent of "the boyfriend"
2) "I will bring a boyfriend of mine to the party". This implies that you have several boyfriends and will bring one of them -- "a boyfriend".
Sentence (2) conveys that there's a larger pool of boyfriends to choose from. But I don't hear the opposite in sentence (1) unless I take into account our social standards are the fact that anyone's boyfriend set has usually either 0 or 1 member.
I just totally don't hear the difference, but it seems that you're right and it is a thing, so I'll add it to a list of article-related rules I always mess up. Thank you for your time.