"Her arm and leg were broken in an accident."

Translation:Ŝiaj brako kaj kruro rompiĝis en akcidento.

September 14, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Is there any reason why gambo is not being accepted for leg in this sentence? Would gambo (Leg of lamb, chicken leg, etc.) while a kruro is a leg still very much attatched to the animal?


According to vortaro.net and ReVo, "kruro" and "gambo" can indeed both mean "leg". I have a feeling that "kruro" is more frequently used nowadays, though.


According to vortaro.net, only people have gamboj while kruroj can belong to horses, people, crabs, tables, chickens, dogs, butterflies, chairs...


Why 'šiaj' and not šia


Because "arm" and "leg" together are two things, and the adjective applies to both of them, so it gets the plural ending.


"...estis rompitaj..." is also accepted. It seems to me that it's a more accurate rendering of the passive "were broken" than is "rompiĝis" (broke). Or am I missing something? (Not impossible)


I feel strange about the preposition choice here. In theory, it could have happened inside of the site of the accident, but wouldn't "pro" make more sense? Am I overthinking it?


Pro is far better, but on the other hand you could say “because of an accident” in English, too, if you want to talk about the reason and not the circumstances. Akcidente would be an alternative not to declare weather you mean reason, circumstances or time—or all together.


Another possibility is "dum" (during an accident).


In theory, it could have happened inside of the site of the accident...

You have raised my curiosity. How do you accidentally break a bone outside of the site of the accident. Isn't the spot where it happens, by definition, the site of the accident?




From Latin crūs, crūris. (Leg)

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