1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Ŝi kisas lin."

"Ŝi kisas lin."

Translation:She is kissing him.

May 28, 2015



This lesson is full of drama.




I think someone broke his heart before he did this lesson


when Duo recognizes that what you REALLY need to do with a language asap is discuss the latest drama, not talk about flies in butter


If Esperanto was designed to be easy, why does it distinguish between subjective and objective pronouns? Does it mitigate some ambiguity differently to, say, Chinese? I can't imagine it.


I'm not sure, but i think its to allow a more flexible word order.


Just think of it as "easy relatively to everyone", and not to you, you know?


> be me > use sxi instead of ŝi > "you have a typo in your answer"

  • 2663

I've found that the mobile app will accept the x-system as a typo. The web site handles the x-system just fine.

  • ŝi has she and her as only hints
  • ŝin has her as only hint
  • she has ŝi as only hint
  • her has ŝin, siajn and sia as hints (at least in one exercise I saw).
    Since they are three to be displayed, there could be more in the entire list of hints for her defined in the incub. @E0/EN team: is it the case?

@All: Thus, I wonder: in which context(s) ŝi corresponds to her?


ŝi and ŝin are one and the same; they both mean her/she. While they both have the same meaning, they are used differently. ŝi is used as the subject in the sentence, and ŝin is the object. So basically, ŝi performed an action on ŝin. ŝia is possesive and means her(s). As in, "ŝia gepatroj" (her parents) or "tio estas ŝia" (that is hers).


Thanks for the answer.
That's what I thought, thus my doubt and question seing that ŝi (subject) as her (object) in the list of hints: in which context the subject ŝi will to correspond to the object her?
Your answer and ActualGoat's one seem to indicate that there is an error in the hint of ŝi then.


After a preposition English uses the object form and Esperanto uses the subject form, so por ŝi is "for her"

  • 2663

That's not how cases work.

That's what I get for over-simplifying things, I guess. I find myself in a discussion with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. :\^) (There are just so many people on Duo who are clueless with regard to prescriptive, let alone descriptive, grammar.) Cheers.

(Also, much love for mentioning θ-roles.)

  • 2663

Strictly speaking, the object of a preposition is the dative case, but not all languages (like English or Esperanto) mark it. So on the surface it looks like the nominative case, but that's because the nominative case is often also unmarked.


No. That's not how cases work. That's like saying, strictly speaking, the word "pumpkin" in "I became a pumpkin" is in the translative case and "home" in "I'm going home" is in the allative case (which just happen not to be marked in English) because that's what they would be in Finnish. We could argue endlessly about what case a particular word is in, with me using one language as my template for understanding cases and you using another, but if the language we're describing does not mark cases, we're basically arguing over how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

Cases describe morphological marking (different forms). Without a morphologically distinguished dative case marked anywhere in the language, we can say the language lacks a dative case. This is much simpler than saying every language contains every case present in any language.

It's possible to talk about the thematic relation of a word (its role) in terms of case. For example, the thematic relation recipient is generally associated with the dative case in languages that have it, so loosely (not technically) speaking, we can distinguish a "dative" use of "him" (I'm going to cook him dinner) from an "accusative" use of "him" (I'm going to cook him), but really, since modern English never morphologically distinguishes these roles, English does not have a seperate "accusative" or "dative", even though we can syntactically distinguish the thematic relation recipient from patient.

And, when it comes down to it, languages which mark case do a whole range of things with adpositions (prepositions/postpositions). German, for example, has some prepositions which are always followed by accusative, some always followed by dative, some always followed by genitive and some that vary depending on the meaning (with dative often used for location and accusative used for direction, similar to the prepositional accusative in Esperanto). Russian has a special prepositional case which is only used after certain prepositions. So it's incorrect to say that, "strictly speaking", the object of a preposition is in the dative case, because it's very often in another case.

Damn, that was long, but I thought it was nicer than just "No. That's not how it works."


I think that ŝi is she, and ŝin is her, but not the her as in ŝia. I think the hints are a bit ambiguous because of the English language and its flaws.


eg. to her = al ŝi (I'm sorry I'm not good enough at English grammar to give an explanation...)


Thx tomaszym!

N.B.: You can answer specifically to a given comment by clicking on the "reply" button just under the said comment.
This helps keeping the discussion more easily readable (especially when there will be a lot of comments and since they are ordered by number of upvotes/downvotes.


Glad I know how to talk about my romance drama now!!


iam mi konfuzas se uzi -n, ĉu iu ĉi tie povas klarigi pri ĝi?


The "She vs Her" explaination is not correct; yes that is how it works translated to english, but this is Esperanto.

The reason why we identify subject vs object is to signify who or what the doer and reciever of the verb are. When you get into more advanced Esperanto, word order doesn't matter. That's when identifying subject vs object is important.

Lin amas Ŝi. Amas Lin Ŝi Ŝi amas Lin

Are all the same. If we didnt identify the object in these sentences things would get very ambiguous.


Why isn't "She kisses him" an acceptable answer?

  • 2663

It should be. If it was a multiple-choice question, did you select all of the valid translations and not just that one?


This is a common question. Here's my min-FAQ


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