1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "The tomato soup tastes good."

"The tomato soup tastes good."

Translation:La tomata supo bongustas.

June 1, 2015



When do we use bone vs. bona?


Bona says something about a noun (or it says something is good), while bone says something about a verb (or it says something is done in a good way)

For example, if you say "a good dog is walking," that would be
 bona hundo marŝas (the dog is good)
But if you say "a dog is walking well," that would be
 hundo marŝas bone (the way he walks is good)

Note that because it is possible to place adjectives and adverbs both before and after the word it belongs to, you can make two sentences that are almost the same but mean something different:
 La hundo bona marŝas.
 La hundo bone marŝas.
I believe "la hundo bona marŝas" would generally be rarely said, but even then someone who speaks a language like Spanish or French, where the adjectives go after the noun, might say it like that every now and then.


"bone" is an adverb, while "bona" is an adjective. So the form you use depends on the word it is modifying


Why is "La tomata supo gustas bone" wrong?


That is what I wrote, and it was accepted. It must have been added as an alternative translation since you tried it.


Doesn't "supo de tomato" mean "tomato's soup"? I used "supo da tomato" and got it marked as a typo.


We aren't talking about soup that belongs to a tomato but instead soup made of tomato so that would be wrong and supo DA tomato would be a tomatos worth of soup because if I was writing out a recipe in esperanto cupo da lakto would be a cups worth of milk


in lesson notes is tomata vs tomato explained? I have no recollection.


"Tomata" is the adjective form, and it is modifying the noun "supo". " tomato" is the noun form of the word.


if bone is altering the meaning of gusta, wouldn't it mean, "tastes well"? as in the soup has the ability to taste things better than normal? I got marked off for not including, "la tomata supo gustas bone" because this is the verb form of gusta doesn't it imply the soup can taste?


Interesting question. I wondered about this too, but as often is the case with seeming ambiguities in Esperanto, it’s not a problem with Esperanto, but with English.

English has two different verbs that look the same: I taste the soup. The soup tastes good. The first verb describes an action, and the second the emergence of a quality.

In Esperanto, this is done with two verbs. Gusti is used for the emerging quality, and therefore implies no active tasting on the part of the soup.

Gustumi, on the other hand, is the activity of tasting that we do when we eat, for instance.

English is also unusual in how it distinguishes noun modifiers from predicate modifiers. In many languages using the adjective in this kind of sentence construction is only done when you use either a copula (to be), or verbs that can be written together with to be. To take examples from English: seem and appear can both get an added «to be» without changing meaning.

Though I don’t know all the details yet, it has so far been my impression this is how Esperanto behaves, using adverbs unless it is a verb that is a copula or acts as a copula.

La tomata supo gustas bone - the tomato soup tastes good.

La tomata supo gustumas bone - the tomato soup tastes well.


"Da" is used with quantites only. (multe da tomatoj; milionoj da tomatoj)

There are diffent ways to say it: tomata supo, tomatosupo, supo de tomato(j). In English only the equivalent to the second one is in use, in French the third one is common.


Well, in French it's still "soupe à la tomate" and not "soupe de la tomate". In lesson it was said that "de" in Esperanto refers to possession.


Soupe à la tomate = soup with tomatoes. Soupe de tomate = tomato soup. The latter seems more usual to me.


Yeah "de tomate". Because "de la" would mean possession - tomato's soup. Isn't "de" in Esperanto equivalent to "de la" or "du" in French?


"De" between nouns can have seven different meanings:

  1. possession: la libro de Petro, la genio de Zamenhof

  2. charasteristics: ĉevalo de blanka koloro, floroj de nekomparebla odoro

  3. measurement: sumo de mil frankoj, alto de dudek metroj

  4. part of a defined thing: peco de tiu kuko, duono de tiu kuko

  5. acting: la amo de la gepatroj al siaj idoj

  6. object: la preparo de la kongreso

  7. relation: la prezo de pano

The soup would belong to number 7. There you can often find a more precise preposition, for example "supo el tomatoj", if you want to stress that the soup is made from tomatoes.


Thanks a lot :)


Serious question: Is it possible to unambiguously say "tomato's soup" in Esperanto?


What is “tomato’s soup”? A soup from one tomato only?


I'm asking whether there is a way to unambiguously assign POSSESSION of the soup to a tomato. IOW, to entirely avoid the implication "supo el tomato". Obviously, it would just be a grammatical construct that would never be used in real life, but Esperanto is supposed to be constructive.


Use the word propra (own) or the preposition ĉe (at).

  • 1956

Why not "la supo el tomato .." ?


What about, "La tomata supo gustumas bone."


Why not "La tomata supo gustamas bone"


Because "gustumas" refers to the tasting you do when you eat food, or have a drink. Here, the tomato soup isn't tasting something else; rather the sentence describes the way it affects our tastebuds, so it is "gustas".


Note spelling of gustumi. (Edit: It looks like David already did - oops, sorry.)

  • gusti - used to describe how something tastes.
  • gustumi - used when someone takes a taste of so something.

HakonSoreide posted a good and detailed explanation in this thread.

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