"I could die for him."

Translation: Mi povus morti por li.

[deactivated user]

The other options I got were: "Mi ĝuas morti por li" and "Mi povus morti por laboras". I'm not sure which is worse.

[claire_resurgent]

Ha!

[claire_resurgent]

Oof...

I remember learning these sentences a week or two ago. It's really annoying, because English doesn't distinguish tense/mood the same way that Esperanto does.

The eternal-present (povas morti) has the neutral sense "could die sometime."

The conditional (povus morti) has the unreal sense "could maybe die for him (under the right circumstances)." There is a strong subtext of "but fortunately it seems that I won't have to" - it expects a "se" or "sed."

And when English would use "I can die for him" - as if I were volunteering - that would be the volitional (povu morti).

(To round out the other two forms "mi povis morti" strongly implies "and I did," "povos morti" implies "and I will.")

Just remember that the -as form is more neutral here, and that "could die" is more neutral in English. Deep breaths, this is a language-learning exercise, not a translation-craft exercise.

[zmjb1]

Why is this incorrect? Mi mortigus por lin
Why is povas needed

[salivanto]

"Mi mortigus" is "I would kill.

"por lin" is incorrect. It needs to be "por li."

Povas means "can". Povus means "could."

[LimeGreenTeknii]

Mi mortus por Riley!

[GrishaV]

Rick kaj Morti