1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "I am drinking water."

"I am drinking water."

Translation:Mi trinkas akvon.

May 30, 2015



WHY DO I ALWAYS CONJUGATE VERBS!!!!! It drives me nuts. :( Anyone else here conjugate verbs by accident?


All the time :'P


Same but in French. It's 'cause i live where there are French stuff everywhere. (Canada).


Akvo vs akvon?


Accusative vs nominative case.


"mi estas trinkanta akvon" is correct?


Akvon trinkas mi.... shoulnd't it be right? It says that "mi" is wrong.


It should be


I reply it and it works very well. poor thing :(

[deactivated user]

    Did you mean "I replied 'Akvon trinkas mi'"? I pretty sure you don't mean that you just put "it" for the answer :)


    Shouldn't "Mi estas trinkas akvon" be accepted?


    Apparently, "Mi estas trinkanta akvon" is the correct version of this sentence, if using "estas".

    Since "estas" = am [state of being]

    Therefore, "mi estas trinka akvon" says basically "I am drinkable water"

    (I am the water vs I am doing something to the water)


    You said "am" twice.

    Estas = am

    trinkas = am drinking


    Does ''min trinkas akvo'' = ''Water drinks me'' or is it just ''akvo trinkas min''?

    I know that this makes no sence, but who knows, the water might try to drink me next time I try to drink it and then I need to know how to say 'Water drinks me!' in Esperanto.


    Either works. Since the subject ends in -o and the object ends in -n, the word order doesn't matter.


    Why is "akvon mi trinkas" wrong? I thought that sentence structure could be flexible?


    Should be fine. Report it if it isn't accepted.


    Trinkanta vs trinkas, what's the difference?


    Trinkanta is (sort of) a gerund. In english, it would be drinking. Esti trinkanta would be "to be drinking".


    I am so confused. :(


    whats the difference of akvon and akvo? Is it masculine and feminine?


    No. It has to do with the case. It's like the difference between using 'I' and 'Me'. When you say 'I', that is the subject of the sentence. When water is the subject of the sentence you use 'akvo'. When you would say 'me', that's the direct object of a sentence. If water is the direct object, you use 'akvon'. That way you know who is doing what regardless of sentence order.


    The three following translations should be acceptable for I am drinking water. Don't you agree?

    • Mi trinkas akvon. (I drink water.)
    • Mi estas trinkanta akvon. (I am drinking water.)
    • Mi estas trinkebla akvo. (I am drinking water.)

    Granted, that last translation wouldn't often need to be said, but it is grammatically correct!

    [deactivated user]

      "Mi trinkas akvon" and "Mi estas trinkanta akvon." are correct, but "trinkebla" means "drinkable" (trink- + suffix ebla), so although your third sentence would mean in English, "I am drinkable water". I think I can see how you got it, though. In English, we call water that is fit for drinking "drinking water". Someone might say , "What is in that glass?" to which someone else could reply, "Drinking water." Someone may ask, "What are you doing?" and the answer IN ENGLISH could be, "Drinking water" or "I am drinking water." but neither of those means, "I am drinkable water"

      [deactivated user]

        Well, then I can say this in four languages (I still remember Ich trinke Wasser... used to study German for a while), oh yeah :D


        Why would they show trinkas but not trinkanta as a solution. I bet many people got this wrong thinking trinkas was the only acceptable answer.

        [deactivated user]

          Two possible reasons come to mind: First, if you use "trinkanta", you need "estas" as well. You can't just say, "Mi trinkanta akvon." It would have to be, "Mi estas trinkanta akvon." Secondly, although in English we often use forms like "am drinking", "are going" and "is wearing", in Esperanto things like "estas trinkanta", "estas iranta" and "estas portanta" are comparatively rare, the simple "trinkas", "iras" and "portas" being the norm. (Those are only examples of course).


          So I'm guessing there is no progressive present tense in eo?

          [deactivated user]

            If you look at my reply to SaigeMazda, which appears just above your message, you will see that there is a present progressive tense, similar to the English "is drinking", "am writing", "are going", etc. You can say in Esperanto, Mia patro estas trinkanta grandan tason de teo", "Mi estas skribanta leteron al vi", "Ni estas iranta el la butikoj". However, these forms are comparitively rare in Esperanto, nowhere near as common as in English.


            It said " mi trinkas akvon" is wrong why and said it is trinkanta which i dont know

            [deactivated user]

              As "Mi trinkas akvon" is Duolingo's given "correct answer", are you sure you typed exactly that? If you had put, "Mi estas trinkas water" for example, thinking you had to translate the English "am" as a separate word, it might have suggested changing it to "Mi estas trinkanta akvon", which would also be correct, if less usual, than "Mi trinkas akvon". Incidentally, "Mi trinkanta akvon" is wrong.


              why do they say that trinkas is incorrect but trinkata is correct?

              [deactivated user]

                Who do you mean by "they"? Duolingo's answer is "Mi trinkas akvon", and on this comments page, I am the only person so far to have mentioned "trinkata", but I said "Mi estas trinkata" would be correct, but less usual, as a translation for "I am drinking". I certainly didn't say that "trinkas" is incorrect. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

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