Just by curiosity, does the "-um-" in gustumi means something? Like "to try"?
Because I understand that in bongusti, "bon-" is "good/well" and "gusti" is taste, thus "bongusti" "good taste".
So if "-um-" is "to try", does this mean that adding it to "bon-" to make "bonumi" is now "to try to be good"?
Because gusti means ‘to cause a sensation on your tongue’, so for instance you can say ‘Teo gustas bone’ = ‘tea tastes good’, i.e., tea causes a good/nice sensation on your tongue. However, you cannot say ‘Mi gustas teon’*, because then ‘I cause a sensation on someone's tongue’ and then somehow ‘teo’ is in the accusative case, which makes no sense; gusti does not take an object.
On the other hand, gustumi means ‘to perceive a taste’ or ‘to try something in order to perceive its taste’. So now ‘Mi gustumas teon’ makes sense, because it means ‘to perceive the taste of tea’ or ‘to try tea in order to perceive its taste’.
Thanks. So in English your first example would be "I do not taste well." And your second is "I do not taste good." Interestingly, in the second example, in English, taste is a noun not a verb (do being the verb here) and good being an adjective. Could the latter then be "Mia gusto ne estas bona."?
"taste" in this context is not a noun, it's an infinitive. You don't say "I don't tennis", you say "I don't do tennis". That's because "tennis" is a noun, and in English you can't say use verb + not + noun, you have to use auxiliary + not + infinitive/participle + noun.
As for your question, that is another way of saying it, yes, but not because "taste" is a noun in the sentence, but because the root meaning of "taste" is the same whether it's a noun or an infinitive.
I will accept that my English grammar is not wonderful and have got confused about adverbs before, so might well be wrong about nouns and verbs too. "Do" by itself is a transitive verb. "Taste" (from Chambers dictionary) Noun - The particular sensation caused by a substance on the tongue. (This is the meaning that I had thought I was using.) However, I also accept that you don't "Do" a noun. I was wrong again.
But ... "Good" in (UK English - from various dictionaries including Chambers & OED) is not an adverb but is an adjective. You don't use an adjective to describe the action of a verb, you use it to describe a thing. So since "good" in the sentence is not an adverb and is applying to the word "taste", I had jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that "taste" was being used as a noun.
I'm still (obviously) confused.
"Taste" is also a verb, Davgwynne. It's the action we perform with our tongues. It can be either transitive (telling what we taste) or intransitive (telling how the subject of the sentence tastes to us).
"Do" is really a helping (or auxilliary) verb in this sentence. The main verb is "taste." "Good" is definitely an adverb, modifying the verb "taste." (It answers the question, "How does it taste?")
"Not," in this case, modifies "do taste" by making it negative. So the question being answered is, "How does it taste?" with the answer being "not good." ("Not" is an adverb, modifying "good.")
Does this help?
Neither: it's tasting an unspecified amount of tea. If it meant "a cup of tea" it would say "tason da teo", and if it meant "tea flavouring" it would say "teguston" (or "tean guston", "guston de teo" etc.). And if you were wondering, "type of tea" would be "tespecon" (or "tean guston", "guston de teo").
It would be gustmezuri. However, this really does not fit the sentence: Measuring has some defined answer; when you taste, you personally get an idea of something, about which you may have an opinion (you can like the taste, etc.). This is not a measurement, because other people who ‘measure’ this probably get a different result.
No, that doesn't seem to make sense. The verb gusti is not a transitive verb; that is, it does not take an object. It just means something like “To cause the perception of taste”. Therefore, you cannot make it passive. Secondly, de teo seems weird as well, as if teo is the actor of gusti (as if it were a transitive verb); you know, just like you'd use de for something like La pilko estas ĵetita de mi = The ball is thrown by me.
I have noticed for some time that verbs ending in "-as" can be translated as ending with "-ing" (Sxi mangxas, "She eats/is eating"). "Gustumas" also ends in "-as", but the combined "-umas" particle appears on first exposure to be the proper form for an English translation ending in "-ing".
English uses the present progressive ('-ing') a lot more often than many other languages do. For example, Spanish (which you also appear to be learning) will often say things like "I eat" to mean "I am eating" (and "I am eating" to mean "I am eating right now").
Esperanto also follows this more common linguistic behavior, so the course will usually allow you to put either the simple present tense or the present progressive when translating sentences into English.
And '-um-' is a special affix, with no predefined meaning; it's used when you need to distinguish between two verbs which share a common root but are not the same: in this case, to have a taste (gusti ) and to do the tasting (gustumi ).