"La virino havas bongustan ĉokoladon."

Translation:The woman has delicious chocolate.

May 30, 2015

This discussion is locked.


So, to make sure I'm understanding right, "bongustan" has the -n suffix because it is describing the object of the sentence?


Yes - adjectives have to agree in ending with the nouns they describe; because "ĉokolado" here is the direct object, it becomes "ĉokoladon", and "bongusta" the adjective just needs to agree with the noun, therefore the two words end in -n.


I'm imagining downvotes here but could you be awkward and translate 'The fat man eats the small cake' as La viro malgrandan manĝas la kukon dika? Not that you'd want to but just as a logical exercise.


Could you be awkward and do that? Yes. Would someone trying to assimilate the information probably give up on having a conversation with you because you're speaking in tongues? Yes as well.

If you want to be understood, you need to keep blocks of things that go together (your S, your V and your O), regardless of the word order inside and outside the blocks.


I try to get my head around rules by seeing how far they bend, to see where the boundaries lie. As I say it was a logical exercise, I'm not intending to speak to anyone like that.


I believe this sort of thing was not uncommon in Latin poetry.

It would be awkward, but probably not forbidden or wrong, in Esperanto.


As a student doing latin poetry for GCSE/WJCE, yes being rules is a huge thing, even to represent that someone looks after someone else, its incredibly annoying.


I think it is better like this "La viro malgranda manxgas la kukon dikan" because the "malgranda" allows with "viro" and "dikan" allows with "kukon".


Just to note how the word is formed. Bongustan = bona + gusto, where gusto means taste, flavour


And malgusta would mean bad taste? Or would it be malbongusta?


In Esperanto "mal" does not mean bad, It gives the opposite of the following word. "Bon" is good, so "malbon" is bad, so the second is the correct one. "malbongusta" would mean "bad tasting" which is the opposite of delicious. Another example, "rapide" is "fast" and "malrapide" is slow. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16967/16967-h/16967-h.htm

Careful with one letter difference: "malĝusta" means "incorrect" or "wrong".


Also, "sengusta" is "tasteless".


Exactly, malo = 'opposite'. Although, 'delicious' is kind of an augmentative of 'tasty' (bongusta) so wouldn't it be bongustega?


"Delicious" and "tasty" are listed as synonyms for each other. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delicious http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tasty

On the other hand "bongusta" is listed as "good taste" and supporting you, "bongustega" is listed as "delicious". http://esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm Perhaps we should report this.


PaCa826187 is right; "delicious" has a stronger meaning than "tasty".


Duolingo just accepted "tasty" for me.


I stand corrected. Delicious sounds more intense than Tasty to me so that's the way I've been (mis)using them for years.


I think that malgusta would mean tasteless or flavorless. But having said that.. mi estas komencanto.


I thought that initially but I think you woud prefix sen (without) for tasteless, sengusta. I think 'What is the opposite of flavour?' is a question for philosophers. It sounds quite Zen.


Chokoladon sounds like a very tasty dinosaur


Barney the Dinosaur was delicious. I say so from experience. ^_^


"Delicious chocolate" is an oxymoron.

EDIT: GAAH!!! I meant it's redundant! (slaps self in face)


You are allowed to have an opinion. Even if it is wrong. XD


Why is chocolate sometimes cokoladon and sometimes cokoladan


English can put one noun before another one to modify it like an adjective -- much as you can have a "big book" you can also have a "physics book", where the noun "physics" modifies "book" like an adjective.

Esperanto doesn't do that.

So if you want to say "chocolate cake", for example, you have to turn the noun "chocolate" into an adjective explicitly -- from ĉokolado into ĉokolada. Then there can be a ĉokolada kuko "chocolate cake". And if you have one, you have ĉokoladan kukon "chocolate cake" (with the accusative ending -n).

If you said ĉokolado kuko with just two nouns next to each other, it sound a bit as if you said "size book" instead of "big book" -- you just can't put those two nouns together like that and expect it to make much sense.


Given that I found myself wondering, while doubting that anyone else was wondering if the She of this sentence had a singular mass of chocolate (apparently she does) versus a single piece of chocolate, I still came here to try to find out the following:

Would there be a different ending for ĉokolad- in the latter context (since Esperanto doesn't indicate the singular, just the lack of plural). other than 'unua ĉokoladon' or 'unua fragmenton de ĉokoladon'?


Why is it bongusta[n] and not bongusto[n]


Because it's an adjective.

ĉokolado is a noun, so it ends in -o.

bongusta is an adjective, so it ends in -a. The adjective bongusta describes the noun ĉokolado. What kind of chocolate is it? Delicious chocolate.

And since the bongusta ĉokolado is the direct object of the verb havas, it gets put into the accusative case, and both the adjective and the noun get the accusative case ending -n -- bongustan ĉokoladon.




Chocolate... did you say CHOCOLATE?!


"The woman has tasty chocolate"?


I'm wondering how this would be distinguished from "The woman has a delicious chocolate" as in a piece of chocolate or a chocolate bar. The absence of "la" often indicates "a" but perhaps with words like "chocolate" it's assumed to be a general supply of chocolate, and anything more specific would be further indicated in the sentence.


Saluton ☺

I think you're thinking right.

I understand the sentence as: "The woman has (some) delicious chocolate".

Try "pecon da ĉokolado", "ĉokoladan blok(et)on", "ĉokoladbriketon", "ĉokoladan bombonon", "ĉokoladan tabuleton", or some variation of those ("pecon da ĉokolado" is the safest) :o)

The English could also be about a delicious sort of chocolate, which would be "specon de ĉokolado".

sfuspvwf npj


which I translated as "The woman has a good chocolate" : why is this considered as wrong ? Because of the "a" ? Therefore how to differentiate "a chocolat" to "some chocolate" ? Or is it that "good" cannot translate for "bongustan" ?


why is this considered as wrong ? Because of the "a" ?

That is correct.

The countable noun "chocolate" and the uncountable noun "chocolate" mean two different things in English.

Therefore how to differentiate "a chocolat" to "some chocolate" ?

I think that countable "chocolate" corresponds to ĉokoladaĵo.


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