1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "La feliĉaj knabo kaj knabino…

"La feliĉaj knabo kaj knabino dankas min."

Translation:The happy boy and girl thank me.

June 1, 2015



Kio vi faris por ili?!


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".


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.