1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "The children are running pas…

"The children are running past the big tree."

Translation:La infanoj kuras preter la granda arbo.

June 4, 2015



So I thought you were supposed to use the -n ending after a preposition if there is movement involved. Why isn't that the case here?


@migranto: you don't need to indicate the movement with the -n, because prepositions like AL, POST, PRETER, TRA already indicate a movement.

There are examples where you need it:

la hundo iras en la ĝardeno = the dog goes in the garden (is already inside)

la hundo iras en la ĝardenon = the dog goes in the garden (was outside, goes inside)

*la hundo iras al la ĝardeno = the dog goes to the garden (not yet inside)


For "was outside goes inside" tie English preposition fuentes to "into"

[deactivated user]

    I'm a beginner myself, but my guess would be because they are not doing anything to the tree itself. Like, if I were to go into my house, the house would be in accusative, because I did something to it directly (went in). But if I'm merely walking in my house (not INTO it), then I'm not doing anything to the house itself, and thus, house would not be in accusative. "Mi marŝas en mian domon," vs, "Mi marŝas en mia domo." If that makes sense. I think the same thing is happening here in this sentence.


    I think it is because the action isn't involing the tree. The kids are just running around out there beyond the tree. Now, if the kids were actually passing the tree (going from in front to behind and beyond) then I think you would use the -n

    "La infanoj kuras preter la grandan arbon"= running from some point prior to the tree, to some point beyond

    "La infanoj kuras preter la granda arbo"= Running from one point beyond the tree to another point beyond the tree.

    I might be wrong though and wouldn't mind the clarification.


    hm, interesting... I interpreted the sentence as meaning "the children actually pass the tree, going from in front to behind and beyond". The other possible interpretation, that they are running around in a spot that is beyond the tree, hadn't occurred to me. But now I see how this is ambiguous in the English sentence. Also wouldn't mind the clarification of which sentence means what in Esperanto (use of -n vs no -n).


    You don't use -n with preter. Direction is already indicated. "La infanoj kuras preter la granda arbo" means they are running and pass a tree on their way.

    Another sentence might be, "La rivero fluas preter la urbo." (The river flows past the city.)


    "Don't" is the wrong word here. You usually don't, but you actually can in some circumstances. This is explained in the entry in PIV.



    I think the accusative shows movement towards something not movement in general and if the preposition already shows movement towards you don't need it.


    Why am I incorrect when I wrote, "La infanoj kuras preter la arbo granda."?


    It just hasn't been added as an option yet, due to the course being in beta, you should report it.


    How are preter and post different?


    Post = after*

    Preter = past, beyond

    Use Wiktionary next time you're uncertain :)


    I should add that, post is usually used as after.


    Oh, that was what it was supposed to say. Thanks for pointing it out.


    I answered "La infanoj preterkuras la granda arbo." and seems this is wrong. Why?


    If you skip the preposition then the object (here "granda arbo") needs to be in accusative. So the correct version would be "preterkuras la grandaN arboN", but I am also not sure if any preposition can be added to the verb as you did.


    Sure, it's technically right, but I recommend sticking to the standard order and such.


    Prepositions can be used as verbal prefixes. I think the problem is that if you use "preter" as a prefix then "granda arbo" should be in the accusative otherwise there are two subjects and no object.


    In the family unit, we learned that the prefix "ge-" means both genders, and it's always added to the male word. So:

    Patro = father

    Gepatro = parent

    Can we do that instead of "infanoj"?

    Knabo = boy

    Geknabo = kid

    I know the word "infanoj" means kids, but does "geknabo" work too? It seems to follow the rules, but I'm not sure if it's accepted.


    You can only use "ge-" with plurals. It means "both genders together". So: "geknaboj" - "boys and girls", "gesinjoroj" - "ladies and gentlemen" or "Mr & Mrs"


    That is not quite right. ge- means "of any gender" or "not gender specific". I have also noticed this wrong translation "both genders together" in a few places. But http://vortaro.net/#gepatro "mi havas unu gepatro, mia patro" = i have one parent, my father"

    Infanoj is refering to the age group children (children, youngsters, adults, elders), whereas geknabo refers to a boy or girl


    In fact, StephenH0 is right. Ge- is used to talk about both sexes together. The word 'gepatro' is not universally accepted, and those who accept it recognize that it's an isolated example.

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