1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Tio estas pulvoro de kafo."

"Tio estas pulvoro de kafo."

Translation:That is instant coffee.

June 2, 2015


Sorted by top post


I have never heard of coffee powder... I guessed coffee grounds... very confused right now.

June 3, 2015


I think "coffee grounds" should certainly count! I hope you marked it as an error. We are still in Beta, so that sort of feedback is valuable!


"coffee grounds"= kafrekremento http://vortaro.net/#rekremento


Not so long ago, I discussed the term "coffee grounds" with Chuck Smith (IIRC). You'll sometimes hear people use that term for ground coffee, ready to use, but it usually refers to the wet used stuff when you're done making coffee. I would certainly NOT describe that as "pulvoro."


I think I reported it as the solution being unnatural instead of clicking that I thought my solution should be correct.


So that's the powder the grandfather likes in the previous sentence.


Avo sxatas blankan pulvoron. lol


Would "Tio estas kafa pulvoro." be right?


Or "pulvora kafo"??


I think pulvora kafo makes more sense. After all. Powdered coffee is more of a coffee than a powder.

I'm thinking about pulvorkafo actually.


maybe... or kafpulvoro ...or well a number of things depending on whether it is more appropriate to identify that the powder is coffee... or if the coffee is in a powder form. shrug


I like kafpulvoro a lot, actually. I think Duo's focus isn't on word building, though, sadly.


No. Kafa pulvoro is a powder with a coffee quality.


Is 'coffee powder' the same as instant coffee? Like NesCafe?


Could be both instant and normal coffee powder. Besides, "NesCafe"-n eblas nomi "dissolvebla kafo".

I try: dis-solv-ebl-a = possible-to-become-dissoluted = dissolvable. Wow, it works in English, too. :-)


What is "normal" coffee powder? There's either instant coffee, or ground coffee, no "coffee powder".


Does the ground coffee look like powder? I don't drink coffee, but the kind I saw was probably the dissolvable kind it was in crystals that melted fast.


Dissolvable crystals that melt fast is instant coffee. Ground coffee doesn't dissolve, you just add hot water and it basically steeps like tea (well not exactly "steeps", but basically same principle--the flavour of the coffee goes into the hot water and you throw the grounds away).


Yes, but does the ground coffee look like powder?


Who knows! Looking over the comments in this thread, it looks like "instant coffee" was initially not included, but is now presented as a valid alternate translation.

I remember reading the term "tuja kafo" in one of Claude Piron's books - and that's the term I've always used for "instant coffee."

My take (as a long-time student and teacher of Esperanto) is that "pulvoro de kafo" might indeed be understood as instant coffee, but this is not the only way to say it, and not necessarily even the best.


What is the difference between "tio"and "tiu" . Both are translated as "that"b


I think one way to think about it is to consider that Tio and Tiu are the answers to Kio and Kiu... so... "Kio estas anaso?" "Tio estas." ... What is a duck? That is. "Kiu estas anaso?" "Tiu estas." ... Which one is a duck? That one is. "Kiu estas Duo?" "Tiu estas Duo." ... Who is (which one is) Duo? That's Duo (that one is Duo).

but also of course you can use these in other situations... "Mi sxatas tiu vorton" or "Mi sxatas tio vorton" could both be translated to "I like that word" however one would use tiu in a situation where you are specifying... I like that word(, but not this one). or "Tio skribilo estas la mordilo" could mean "that pen is the murder weapon." and I would tio here if the murder weapon wasn't known at all or even if they thought it was a knife or whatever. but I would switch to Tiu if they knew it was a pen, but they weren't sure which one.

That is how I have come to conceptualize it at least, and I hope that it helps.


Suuure it is, Grandpa.


There are stories in these lessons...I love it. :)


Odd. As far as I know, ordinary coffee is also a powder. So that makes no sense to me.


Pulvoro de kafo estas tre malgusta :p


"This is 'a' coffee powder" seems wrong to me. I had it without the article.


I think, "that is bad coffee," should have been accepted. =P


"Powder of Coffee" makes instant coffee sound really exotic… It sounds like the tagline from a product in the early 20th Century.


'The correct' said that it could either be "This is powdered coffee" or "That is instant coffee." How can it be the word "This" without the Cxi before the Tio?


Interesting. I have commented in multiple places that the Duolingo Esperanto Course is very strict about the the whole "cxi" thing, but in real life, the distiction between "this is coffee" and "that is coffee" isn't that big if there aren't two things being contrasted - and therefore, the "cxi" is not needed. Looks like this is one case wehre a "this" got through.

I wouldn't make a big deal about this. (I almost wrote "I wouldn't make a big deal about that.")


I though 'tio' could be used with nouns? I'm probably wrong but... I saw the explanation that 'tio' is used with things you don't know (among other uses), so if you are naming the thing ('pulvero' in this case) then you obviously DO know it. Can someond point out what I have misunderstood please?


Tio is used like “that” in English when “that” is used as a noun. You can think of the ki- and ti- words in Esperanto like the wh- and th- words of English (kio/tio, kial/tial, etc & what/that when/then, where/there) Hope this helps


I wrote "coffee grounds". Nobody in the USA says "coffee grains". Please add this additional solution.


So ... if you want the course authors to make a change, the best way to request this is via the "report a problem" button. The system tabulates the reports in such a way that makes it easier for them to track. It's almost certain that they won't see your comment here. (Almost certain - I'm half-hoping one will pop in and prove me wrong.)

Second - where are you seeing "coffee grains"? I've looked at the OP and I don't understand your comment. If I don't understand it, there's a decent change that at least some others won't understand it either.

Third - I'm not convinced that "coffee grounds" makes sense here. Coffee grounds refer to used coffee, not instant coffee. Coffee grounds are wet and sticky. They wouldn't be described as a powder.


Coffee grains is being given as the corrected solution, a term that Americans never use. "Coffee grounds" is used to refer to both the wet result after making coffee and the dry form used before you've created coffee. If there is a difference technically, it is not recognized by the majority of American English speakers.


US speaker here. While it is true that some people don't know the difference (including, I have found out, the most visible contributor to this course - see other parts of this thread) the definition of "coffee grounds" is "used coffee".

There could be a few reasons that the corrected solution is "coffee grains" -- the most likely one is that the answer is being chosen - by the computer - from a list of alternate solutions. These alternate solutions should not be taken as the best solution. Since the answer is chosen by the computer, it takes the one which is closest to what you entered. "Coffee grains" is more similar to "coffee grounds" than "instant coffee" is.

Before you brew it, it's "ground coffee."


Oh I agree completely that those are the correct terms. I was just trying to explain the “coffee grains” reference and to add my support to the idea that it should also accept “grounds.” Since coffee grounds are used for things other than trash (in gardens, etc), I think its reasonable to consider coffee grounds as a powder because they are used in their dried form as well. As another US speaker, I happen to think that not many people distinguish between coffee grounds and ground coffee even though there are clear definitions that are definitely correct. From a pure linguistics standpoint, coffee grounds seems to make as much sense as coffee grains. And if we’re making those kind of distinctions at all, then instant coffee, ground coffee, and coffee grounds are three different things. It shouldn’t take two and not the third.


I think we could talk about this all day. My thought is that "pulvora kafo" is not a term that I use (I say "tuja kafo"), but that it's fairly well established that it means "instant coffee" - so all this speculation between "grains and grounds" doesn't impact the lesson which learners should take away from this sentence.

"Coffee grains" is also a term that I don't use -- but it seems to mean "coffee beans" - and so is not a good translation.

"Coffee grounds" - as I think we agree - means "used coffee" - so that's not a good translation.

I'm going to recommend that this sentence be removed. Ultimately, though, it's not my call.

Honestly, I only made a fuss because I still don't know what the lesson is.

The lesson, apparently, was to teach the word "pulvoro". The sentence has been removed and replaced with a different one.

I probably should have made my own fuss about this a year ago. Thanks for "making a fuss". It helps sometimes.


Honestly, I only made a fuss because I still don't know what the lesson is. Since the lesson is Objects, I'm presumably meant to learn what "pulvoro de kafo" means. If you guess "coffee grounds," it corrects it to "coffee grains." (Which appears to be either coffee beans or coffee grounds depending on how your Google search goes.) If you click into the lesson, it translates it as "instant coffee." And the page is filled with people discussing different types of powered coffee or powders derived from coffee with no clear consensus. I don't see how it is teaching the lesson since I still can't figure out what the object is.


The lesson, apparently, was to teach the word "pulvoro". The sentence has been removed and replaced with a different one.

I probably should have made my own fuss about this a year ago. Thanks for "making a fuss". It helps sometimes.

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