Why can the comma be used in this sentence? In English, "That is, what I see" sounds awkward.
Commas are used in Esperanto to separate clauses (just like in German). I don't think it's mandatory, but it does to help separate the clauses better so it's just something extra you can use (it won't be counted wrong if you don't use them, though).
You helped me both in Esperanto and German! I never figured out how to use the comma in German. Thanks a lot.
Does this mean it's hard to over use commas in Esperanto? I often over use them in English. :-)
same here! I am always using commas. Sometimes, but not always, I use them a little too much. Not that it is a bad thing, however.
Not if you are using spanish. As a native Spanish speaker I say it is generally acceptable to use them, even instead of points and it's encouraged in some style-courses I've taken.
As for me, I prefer to use points. Not only it saves me the trouble of switching styles with the languages, It also helps me be clearer as a writer. It's a real hassel to read spanish for that same reason. After using English for many years and german to some extend, I find that using points is so much understandable to read.
Yes, we say "period" in American English, or "full stop" in British English. Never "points".
Spanish, Italian, French, and other romance languages use "point" for a full stop or period.
Because it is the direct object in the subordinate clause (the part: “what I see”). ‘What’ is the thing being seen, not the thing doing the seeing, so it's the object, not the subject, whence it gets the accusative case.
Because the "That" is the subject of the main clause (the thing you are seeing), so "Tio".
No, ‘ke’ is a conjunction, while ‘kio’ is a pronoun. Here is an example: “I think that that is true.” = “Mi pensas, ke tio estas vera.”.
this is a succinct and effective example to explain the difference -- thank you!
So kio an kion are used with what thing, and kiom is used for how many, right?
That comma confused me as well. I was thinking, instead of "that is, what I see", could it be read as "what I see is that"? In which case, would the -n suffix go on "tion" instead?
does anybody have any fancy ways of remembering the many different questions
kiom, kion, cu, etc.
I will give a lingot
So this sentence sees "what" as an object, so "kio" becomes "kion". What if the clauses swapped around? ("What I see, is that.") Is "kio" still the object or "tio" now an object? ("Kion mi vidas, estas tio" VS "Kio mi vidas, estas tion".)
The object does not depend on the position in the sentence, but rather on the meaning it has in the sentence/clause. Here kion is the direct object of vidas; it indicates that it is not the thing doing the seeing, but rather the thing that is being seen. If you swap the clauses around, the essential meaning of the sentence remains the same, i.e., kion is still the object of vidas.
The sentence Kio mi vidas, estas tion is grammatically unsound (both because Kio mi vidas is wrong, but also because estas tion is not correct either, as esti is a copula, i.e., a ‘connecting verb’.)
Hope this helps!
Thank you for the clarification. So "kion" is the object of the clause it's in, whereas the "tio" has no such verb-object relationship affecting its grammar.