"La feliĉaj knabo kaj knabino dankas min."

Translation:The happy boy and girl thank me.

June 1, 2015


Sorted by top post


Kio vi faris por ili?!

June 1, 2015


Is the girl implied to be happy as well, or only the boy?


I would say both in this case because it's "feliĉaj" and not "feliĉa". :)


For the latter, the adjective would have to be singular and I suspect you'd have to use a second definite article too: "la felicxa kabo kaj la knabino".

  • 1289

I think it do refers to the both, because in the sentence is used the conjunction kaj, in other words boy and girl. Conjunction: A word used to join two words together into a sentence(in this case)


It's the J on feliĉaj that lets us know that more than one person is happy. Without the J (even with kaj) it would mean "the happy boy and a girl thank me."


Thomas A: Something seems off about the subject in order to come up with a possible translation like: "The happy boy and a girl thank me." Just sayin'.


What is it that you're "just sayin'". It's not clear to me.

All that I said (two years ago) was:

  • La feliĉa knabo kaj knabino dankas min.


  • The happy boy and a girl thank me.

I didn't say that I thought this was a probable sentence. Certainly it's hard to make sense of without context. In any event it's pretty safe to say that when translating a sentence like

  • La feliĉa knabo kaj knabino dankas min.

it will need to be expressed in English in such a way as not to suggest that the girl is happy, because without the -j on feliĉaj the girl is not happy..

But the original sentence has the -j, and if you're saying that it's a more likely sentence with the -j, I fully agree.


Thanks. The problem I'm having is with a noun in Esperanto that doesn't have a definite article having an assumed indefinite article. It makes a construction like this ambiguous.


I wouldn't go that far. Consider this real sentence:

  • ili parolis pri la fiziologio kaj historio de [la] lingvoj vivaj

I wouldn't argue that there is an "assumed indefinite article" in front of the word historio. (That is, I wouldn't assume that historio is indefinite.) When in doubt, it's always safe to add a second la.

My point in commenting (two years ago) was to point out that the plural J really removes any doubt that "la" is meant to apply to both nouns.

My hypothetical sentence isn't that far from reality though. Consider:

  • En la originalo de la unua libro pri Esperanto en la fino estis presita la tuta gramatiko kaj vortaro el ĉirkaŭ mil vortoj.
  • In the original "unua libro" about Esperanto, in the end was printed the entire grammar and a dictionary of about a thousand words.

Any concern about ambiguity... try rewording.

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