1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "I speak a little Esperanto."

"I speak a little Esperanto."

Translation:Mi parolas Esperanton iomete.

May 28, 2015



Why is "esperante" accepted? The "e" ending makes it an adverb, cxu ne?


Esperanto will often use adverbs where in English we use a prepositional phrase.

esperante = in Esperanto


Good to know! I quote like that.


I think it makes sense. You are speaking "Esperanto-ly," or in Esperanto.


I think "mi paroletas esperanton" could also make sense, eh?


I can't wrap my head around esperantA vs esperantE.


Esperanta is an adjective, it describes (or "modifies") nouns. For example, you can have esperanta vorto. An Esperanto word. Esperante is an adverb, it modifies verbs, adjectives and even other adverbs. In this case it was in the example because it is modifying the verb "parolas". In the same way that "speaking slowly" is "malrapide parolas", "speaking Esperanto-ly" is "esperante parolas".

There are many ways to say the same things in esperanto due to its simple structure and openness to other languages. The purpose of allowing all these different manners of saying things is so that when speaking esperanto, it hardly feels any different from speaking your mother tongue, no matter what it is (in most cases).


I still dont get why


Have you figured it out in the four years since August 2016 when you posted your question? If not, could you elaborate what's not clear in Stephie Rice's explanation from February 2017. It's got 20 upvotes, so it seems to have helped a lot of people. Maybe it could help you too.


It has to do with whether or not its being used as an adjective or an adverb, or in the case of "Esperanto" a noun. Esperanta is used as an adjective. For example, if you were to say "an esperanto book", you would say "Esperanta libro". However, if you wanted to say "spoke in Esperanto" you would say "parolas Esperante" because Esperante basically means "in Esperanto" as an adverb. Not as an adjective, though- if you wanted to say the book previously mentioned was in Esperanto rather than about Esperanto, ypu coild specify with "libro en la Esperanta lingvo" meaning "book/a book in the Esperanto language". If you said "Esperanta libro" to sustitute for that anyways they would probably understand, they just moght confuse it for a book about esperanto rather than in esperanto, but since "in Esperanto" is not being used as an adverb you wouldn't say Esperante.


why I can't say " malmulte parolas"?


'Malmulte' means 'few'. You don't speak esperanto 'few'. You speak it a little. I hope this helps!


it worked for me


What worked for you? What was the sentence?


So iomete means, "a little"?


How about "Mi parolas iom da Esperanton


Then it should be iom da Esperanto [the direct object being "iom", and not "Esperanto". One of the example sentences was similar, and had "kiom da <something>" as an object [I can't recall what exactly it was]. It was discussed there.


Why does Esperanton not have the la in front of it like how it does for la anglan, la germana kaj la hispanan? Also, why don't the languages end in an- o and not an -on?


In the other languages, you're basically saying "the language of (nation)". For example, la franca is short for la franca linvgo, the French language. But Esperanto isn't belonging to any nation, so it's a noun of it own.


Ĉar esperanto estas propra nomo. Lingvoj finiĝas kun -a, ne kun -o aŭ -on, ĉar estas adjektivoj.


"La franca" is short for "la franca lingvo."

There are a small number of languages which are usually referred to by their names. This includes Esperanto, Ido, Volapuko, Latino, and Sanskrito.


Kial estas "kelka" ne sufiĉa?


Why "mi esperanton parolas iomete" was not right?


It's not technically wrong, but people don't talk that way in day to day Esperanto.


Mi parolas Esperante iom. Kial ne?


It would be understood if you said it this way even though it is not very natural and it could be interpreted ambiguously.

More natural would be "Mi parolas iom da esperanto". The word "iom" is used to signify a quantity of something and as such it is used often to describe nouns. This could still be interpreted strangely.

I prefer to use "iomete" in these situations so that it isn't assumed I am a fluent speaker who just happens to be speaking only a select amount.


Jes, vi pravas, dankon)


I think that would mean, roughly, "I speak some in the Esperanto way", with 'some' being a noun, not an adverb. It doesn't quite work.


why can't i use Multe?


Multe would mean the opposite: "a lot of".


He means 'malmulte', I believe.

  • 1935

Why not «Mi parolas EsperantAn iomete.»? With other languages there would be a "a" right?


It has something to do with the fact that Esperanto, being a constructed language, does not belong to any nations.


If that's what you're thinking then it would have to be "«Mi parolas la Esperantan iomete.»"


What means ,,iom da"


Well iom means bit or small piece, and da means of . So iom da means a bit of, or some.


Mi parolas esperante iomete.

Seriously, out of the blue, and with no warning? Thanks a lot.


Does malgrande work similarily?


Why iom and not io?


Why Esperanton not Esperanto?


Direct objects are marked with -n. Since you're speaking Esperanto (i.e. since Esperanto isn't speaking you) it's the direct object and needs the -n.

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