- Forum >
- Topic: Esperanto >
- "La manĝaĵo kaj trinkaĵo bong…
33 Comments
126
Does anyone else have trouble distinguishing between the sound of ĝ and ĵ? EDIT: Pfiff at https://www.duolingo.com/skill/eo/Food/3 has an excellent explanation; essentially the difference in the sounds contained in the words "job" - ĝ, and "vision" - ĵ.
I believe gx is like the english j, while jx is like the russian ж, shown in english as zh.
I've always thought that sound should be written as zh in English, since it's essentially the vocalized version of sh, and z is just the vocalized version of s.
Minor correction: Voiced is the correct term. Vocalised could mean different things.
It is easy for me since Hungarian also has these two voices as separate letters. Ĝ is dzs and ĵ is zs. Our signs reflect that they sound similarly. The starting point is the zs ( ĵ ). When someone can pronounce it, can actually do the same with dzs ( ĝ ) as one starts pronouncing the letter d and the zs ( ĵ ) immediately after it (the same time, in the end). You can master the sound if you repeat them faster and faster until they will become one voice. (It is a very rare Hungarian letter and kids had studied it in schools this way when they haven't been watching American animations all the time.)
what is the point of the -ajx-ending here? why not mangxo kaj trinko? i thought you put the -ajx-ending after animals to show you are eating the meat, that is made out of them (like bovajxo or porkajxo)
On this page - http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/affixes.html - they say that "aĵ" is used for "shows a concrete, tangible manifestation of the root". Which makes sense for that animals, but I cannot see reason for the "manĝaĵo" a "trinkaĵo" either.
Manĝo means meal, while Manĝaĵo means food. A "Trinko" would be a drink in the sense of the action of drinking. "I took a drink" (took a swig of a liquid) - that's Trinko. "I took a drink" (picked up a beverage container) - that's Trinkaĵo.
The compound subject kind of threw me on this one since individually you would say "the food tastes good" or "the drink tastes good" plus food and drink are sometimes, but not always, collective nouns in American English. "The food and drink tastes good," sounds more natural to my ear, but I accept that it may not be grammatically correct. English is hard.
- 1241
I left a report about this. English is the only language I personally know which has singular & plural verbs. If a sentence has multiple subjects, but they can all be perceived as singular elements, then the singular verb is acceptable, In this instance, that would be "tastes."
And yes, for the non-native English speakers out there, English singular verbs often end in "s", the plural verbs do not. Exactly opposite of the nouns.
Why? I don't know. He's on third base.
I'm a native English speaker, and this never occurred to me. I always conjugated it naturally without realizing I was doing it. Thanks for the insight!
To me, also a native English speaker, "The food and drink tastes good" sounds wrong. It sounds better as "The food and drinks taste good," because being a compound subject, that automatically makes the subject plural, even if each individual noun is singular. We wouldn't say "John and Mary is happy," we'd say "John and Mary ARE happy," even though John is one person and Mary is one person--togethery, they are two people.
I think it's the same in UK English, maybe it's just because it's a beta thing?
"The food and the beverage taste good" wouldnt be also correct? So I mean beverage instead of drink
No. It can either be "La mangxajxo kaj trinkajxo bongustI<i>as</i>" with bongustas acting as a verb or "La mangxajxo kaj trinkajxo estas bongust<i>a</i>j" with bongusta acting as an adjective, hence the need for an auxiliary verb. That's the beauty of esperanto: you can take a word, change the ending, and get a related word but of a different part of speech!
Where is the verb in this? I thought it said, "The tasty food and drinks," without anything about what the tasty food and drinks DO.
Bongustas with an as at the end is a present-tense verb that means "to be tasty." In Esperanto, you can take an adjective, add a verb ending, and you'll get a verb meaning "to be [that adjective]."
Personally, I love this. It means that with any root you can make any part of speech and you don't have to worry about whether or not you formed it correctly. It just makes the language simpler. (to me, at least)
you have a gift in languages.. i learned spanish but im struggling in esperanto.. its my third day so..
A meal is "any of the regular occasions in a day when a reasonably large amount of food is eaten." source
So does putting "ĵo" at the end of a noun-related verb make it into a noun? "Eat" is materialized into "food", "drink" into "beverage" etc.?
Putting an -o at the end will make words a noun. The suffix -aĵ is a substance or concrete idea. In this case manĝo is meal, and manĝaĵo is food. You generally have to learn what the words will translate to as it can vary, but people would probably understand what you meant even if it wasn't the usual word used.
